[talk-au] Going separate ways

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Mon Jul 11 14:16:21 BST 2011

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Fairhurst"
> <richard at systemed.net>
> To: <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
>> David Groom wrote:
>>> Are you sure?  ODbL defines '"Collective Database" Means this Database
>>> in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
>>> databases ......'. Therefore if you "cut out" Australia it cant be part
>>> of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
>>> unmodified form.
>> I am sure, yes.
>> You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases:
>> osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA).
>> As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of
>> planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of
>> planet.fosm.
>> But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other
>> databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under
>> ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under
>> the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like
>> with
>> an "unmodified" version of it.
> Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are
> derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.

osm-without-australia.osm and fosm-australia-only.osm are not
derivatives of each other (*), but planet-combined.osm is a derivative
of both osm-without-australia.osm and fosm-australia-only.osm.

(*) Although in this case they are both derived from
planet-110706.osm.  But pretending that OSMF starts OSM over from
scratch to come up with osm-without-australia.osm.

More information about the Talk-au mailing list