Simon Ward <si...@...> writes: > > The lawyer's answer is: "Need clarification here. From my reading, this > > example would seem to constitute a Derivative Database under the ODbL." > > It’s a database, derived from the original. To me it’s a derived > database. It does need clarifying to say just that. > > > this could mean that > > anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly > > have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any > > snapshot time where someone cares to request it. > > So be it.
I agree that logically this is OK. It is a database, derived from the original. I feel still that it is unreasonable to say that this kind of just imported and hardly any modified dataset really is markable different from the original. I do regularly import some osm data into PostGIS and reproject it inside the database. Would it be enough to tell where to download the original OSM data and what script to run, or should I really make a dump from my imported and reprojected database tables if someone requests? The result would be identical. Where actually goes the limit between database and something else? I believe that if I convert the data from osm format directly into ESRI Shapefiles then I do not have a database, or do I? But if I let ArcGIS to store the shapefile data into its own personal geodatabase, then I would have a derived database again? How about if I store some attributes from osm data into Excel vs. Access, the latter forms obviously a derived database while the first doesn't? _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
