[OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

[John Bazik]

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
provision.

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?

John