On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: > > LWG cannot entirely resolve these questions, as they need open > > discussion and community consensus (which we obviously can't provide > > on our own). even then, final interpretation is up to the courts. > > Of course. > > Thanks for your comments, I especially liked the a(b(X)@c(Y)) part which > is a nice structure to think about this. > > But about my Navteq+OSM example, you said that > > my reading would be that the deletions from the OSM data are a > > derivative database of both the OSM data and the navteq data and that > > the combination of navteq + (OSM - derivative) constitutes a public > > use of that derivative database, requiring the release of the navteq > > data. > > Now if I loaded my Navteq database into postgis and created a buffer > around every object, generating one giant buffer area multipolygon for > the whole world, then I could use that to subtract data from my OSM data > base and would then only have to publish the giant multipolygon under > ODbL (because that was mixed with OSM data) and not the original Navteq > data. > > So this means I'd have to get permission from Navteq to release the > giant buffer multipolygon under ODbL but if that is granted, I could > continue with my OSM-enhanced Navteq tiles plan, and OSM would gain > precious little from having access to the Navteq buffer multipolygon. > Right? > > Do you even have to go that far? The Navteq multipolygon isn't actually part of the resulting derivative database, it's just part of the algorithm to get there. Assuming the result is just a shrunk version of the OSM DB I'd have thought the only thing you had to release in this case was the alterations made to the OSM DB -- ie: a list of the bits you deleted. We'd be within our rights to try and reconstruct the multipolygon from those deletions, but you wouldn't have to actually release it? or put another way: if I do o...@navteq = DD (where @ is some function that combines the datasets), there's no circumstance in which I have to release Navteq. My obligation is to release DD under ODbL (I can hand out the DD-OSM diff). This happens to entitle anybody else to attempt to reconstruct as much of Navteq as possible. The ODbL says I have to release changes, it doesn't say I have to tell you why I'm making them. Is that remotely the right reading? Dave
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
