[talk-au] Going separate ways

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Groom wrote:
> Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a 
> derivative database

Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a
Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of
ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for the Derivative portion.
(4.5a: "this License still applies to this Database or a Derivative Database
as a part of the Collective Database".)

> 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?

You have broken 3.1c/d/e: the freedom to offer an ODbL-licensed database
within a Collective Database.

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

I don't, but evidently I have a different understanding of "unmodified" to
you. How do you come to the conclusion that "on the same terms and
conditions as this License" means "...except for the one about Collective
Databases"?

Clearly you and I are not going to agree on this and it's beginning to get
snarky rather than informative, so let's leave it there. If you wish to sue
anyone for inclusion of your ODbL-licensed content in a Collective Database
then I recommend you talk to a lawyer first. Otherwise it's largely
immaterial.

Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571861.html
Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.