[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[80n]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

>
> On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:26, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
> > 2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid <gustavf at gmail.com>:
> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come
> >>> from
> >>> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the
> >>> problem
> >>> with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the
> >>> data
> >>> in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that
> >>> would
> >>> be derived, surely.
> >>
> >> The coordinates came from a Produced Work (some map image og paper
> >> map). As
> >> I read the license, works (or databases) based on a Produced Work
> >> is not
> >> subject to the conditions of the ODbL.
> >
> >
> > If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be regarded as
> > reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by
> > 4.7
> > There's that "substantial" caveat again though.
>
> Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked
> multiple lawyers about this personally.
>

Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are not
covered by the reverse engineering clause?

If I derive the location of all the street corners of a city from a rendered
map then that is just a collection of facts and not a reverse engineered
recreation of the original database?  If so, it doesn't seem like the
reverse engineering clause is worth the paper its written on.

80n





>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090305/0fb6a443/attachment.html>