[OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data
peathal at yahoo.de
Mon Jul 8 08:59:52 UTC 2013
Thanks and I'll have a closer look in the archive!
> To answer all your questions in one go: there has been a lot of
> discussion (especially on this mailing list) about the problems/issues
> you raised. And there have been some efforts to better clarify these
> things. I suggest reading the mailing list archive.
> My own opinion is that the legal issues here are murky and I agree
> they could be interpreted differently by different lawyers/people. And
> I guess it is very difficult to write a good license text for such
> type of license, since there are a lot of different ways the data
> could be used, lot of corner cases and a lot of ways the licence could
> be circumvented by interested parties if written too specifically. I
> guess the protecting power of ODbL is in its murkiness :)
> I would not give myself too much hope with interpretations of
> "trivial" and "substantial", in my opinion your use case falls well
> outside of a trivial and unsubstantial use.
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter K <peathal at yahoo.de
> <mailto:peathal at yahoo.de>> wrote:
> Thanks Igor!
> I still have a problem when the "substantial" part of the license
> apply. Also in the wiki there is an explanation about "trivial
> transformation". Are there some examples when both of them applies?
> The wiki raises more questions then it solves as it e.g. does not
> say if the example is a trivial transformation or not:
> > Both, I think - this means you publicly distribute the
> Derivative Database, which has its implications. It also means
> > that CGIAR-based data is then available to public through a
> license different (and more permissive) than the original
> > CGIAR license, which the owner is probably not going to be happy
> about - since he then cannot enforce the
> > "/If interested in using this data for commercial purposes
> please email/" rule.
> Ok, makes sense! BTW: why is such a modification not allowed for
> OpenStreetMap? IMO this limits the applications a lot as also
> enterprise guys cannot just buy a commercial license of OSM so
> they would need to *completely* stay away from OSM!
> > But again, I'm not a lawyer :)
> The thing with ODbl is that even lawyers are not sure because
> there are no (or too few) court cases. So the community has to
> make this very vague ODbl definition more specific. This
> clarification would be important to increase the adoption in the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk