Hi, 80n wrote: > Obviously you can create an image and license it as a Produced Work. > Also fairly obviously you claim that a vector image (eg SVG) is a Produced > Work, > even if it contains most of planet.xml in unmodified form.
Not sure here. You can of course produce a Derivative Database and *claim* it were a Produced Work but my reading always was that as soon as your work contains anything that is by definition a database then your work is a Derived Database and *not* a Produced Work. I assumed that in the absence of a clear definition, the EU definition of "database" would hold and this would mean that even a PNG file can be said to be a database (which would be the other extreme and make Produced Works a niche application). I thus requested, on multiple occasions, clarification of what *we* want to be a database, and I think this is definitely something we have to define either in or acommpanying the license. See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#When_is_something_a_Derivative_Database_when_is_it_a_Produced_Work_and_can_it_be_both. > However, if you exempt the reverse engineering clause for certain > share-alike licenses then it becomes trivial to relicense the whole OSM > database under such a license We don't want to dual-, triple-, quadruple-license our data that's for sure, but we're also not hostile to a bunch of share-alike licenses; if it can be made so that significant effort is required to accomplish the transition ODbL -> SomeShareAlikeLicense (i.e. the easy route via SVG would be too easy, but an OMR route would be difficult enough) then I would be tempted to say: If someone really wants to jump through these hoops to get it done, let him do it. I think this will be a niche application and, if at all, only used very seldom. And if we later find that someone is really being a thorn in our side with that for one reason or another, *then* we think about fixing it. (My general opinion is let's fix bugs now before we start rather than at some undefined point in the future. However in this case I think the threat is negligible.) To Simon Ward - my suggestion was to keep the current stuff about Produced Works (basically: any license you want as long as no-reverse-enigneering clause is kept), and additionally say that the reverse-engineering clause may be dropped if the work is to be licensed under X, Y, or Z. I thought that it would be *easier* (one sentence!) to write that into the license, rather than trying to define the criteria that a license must meet to benefit from this exception. - Again with the thought that if in the future a significant new Share-Alike license pops up, we can make an amendment to our ODbL to allow that one as well. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk