Le dimanche 08 mars 2009 à 22:49 +0100, Frederik Ramm a écrit : Hi,
> Maybe those who advised you hoped that you would read the ongoing > discussion before posting ;-) Well, I read it, but I felt that the idea was rather dimly suggested… > Current ODbL mandates[*]that the derivative database on which the > Produced Work is based must be available which is similar. […] > As I hope to have shown, it *is* actually the case. This is what I can read in the ODbL : 4.7 "Reverse Engineering". For the avoidance of doubt, creating a Produced Work, and then re-creating the whole or a Substantial part of the Data found in this Database, a Derivative Database, or a Database that is part of a Collective Database from the Produced Work, is still subject to this Licence. Any product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License. I recently read a post reporting a lawyer’s advice and he said that Joe Ramdom Mapper should be able to understand the license. If section 4.7 is where it is required to transfer the reverse engineereng clause into the PW’s license, why doesn’t it say so? What are the other options to prevent reverse engineering than putting a clause in the PW’s license? To me, it’s like saying «You shall paint the fence. You may choose any color, provided that color is a even mixture of: * the color of the clear sky, and * the color of ripe lemons.» so, why not just say that it must be painted in green? JC
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
