[OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
me at johnbazik.com
Tue Jul 23 04:54:42 UTC 2013
I see that most serious uses of OSM would be substantial. It's really
the qualitative part that I find difficult to parse.
> It sounds like you're confusing computer science and RDMS databases with the
> legal concept of a database. For the rest of this message, I'm talking about
> the legal concept of a database.
Thanks for drawing the distinction between database systems and databases
in the legal sense. It seems the latter allows for arbitrary divisions
of data, irrespective of database organization.
> Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data to
> not consider user data part of the same database as the map data: osm.org
I'm glad to hear that.
So, is it fair to say that, as an OSM database user, one can distinguish
derivative and non-derivative data field by field, without considering
the schema? That is, the "derivative database" is just that collection
of fields that are considered derivative?
> This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by
> associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by
> the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by
> users, perhaps?)
I'm particularly interested in the application of the ODBL, in OSM's case,
to routes. How are routes "observed physical features?" I understand
that if one were to create an OSM-derived database of roadways that
added on-street parking information, that that added data is an observed
physical feature of those roadways that would trigger the sharealike
But how is it that routes - ordered collections of road segments - are
considered derivative? And what distinguishes a derivative route from
a non-derivative one?
More information about the legal-talk