[talk-au] Going separate ways

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <richard at systemed.net>
To: <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways


>
> David Groom wrote:
>> But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make
>> a "Collective Database" from anything other than the original
>> database in unmodified form.  Since neither of the two individual
>> items are the original database in unmodified form
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> This is a general principle of any open content licence: a Derivative 
> always
> enjoys the same freedoms as the works from which it was made.

I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with "general 
principles", lets stick with the actual ODbL.  Although I suppose if you 
start from the position of what the general principles are it might be 
easier to read into the ODbL things which are not there.

> ODbL makes
> this absolute in 4.8: "Each time You communicate [a] Derivative Database,
> [...] the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on 
> the
> same terms and conditions as this License." Your reading would break this.

Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a derivative 
database, whereas the definitions are always in force.  So assuming I did 
not communicate the derivative database then surely I would have to look at 
what the definitions say rather than clause 4.8 which is not relevant?

Irrespective of the point above, my reading of the terms would not break 
clause 4.8. The derivative database would be offered under ODbL, and you 
would still have to comply with all the requirements of the ODbL which 
relate to derivative databases.  What is broken?

>
> Rather, "in unmodified form" in this instance is clarifying "independent".

Exactly how to you come to the conclusion that "unmodified" does not mean 
"unmodified" , but means "independent"?

Regards

David


> That is, you cannot make non-ODbL-licensable changes in order to mix the
> ODbL- and non-ODbL-licensed parts of the collective.
>
> This is why you cannot take ODbL-France and CC-Germany and link them. This
> would require modifying the ODbL data _outwith_ what ODbL permits you to 
> do.
> "In unmodified form" is making it clear that you can't do that: you have 
> no
> additional permissions to modify the ODbL-licensed part of the database
> (which is, after all, all ODbL is concerned about) for the purpose of
> forming a Collective Database. But in the Australia case, you are not
> modifying the ODbL-licensed part of the database. Every item in the 
> database
> remains 100% ODbL-licensed.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571535.html
> Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>