On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived > database > >> >> > is > >> >> > involved in the process? > >> >> > >> >> if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't > >> >> making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of > >> >> the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't > >> >> provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. > >> >> > >> > Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was > >> > using a > >> > derived database? > >> > >> by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing > >> services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary > >> incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-) > > > > In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion. > > yes. and you'd have no grounds for suspicion if a company were using > modified AGPL software, so you have to rely on gut instinct. > > >> let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data > >> - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is > >> they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do > >> anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any > >> company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some > >> kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them > >> about it. > >> > > You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some > > kind of OSM data?!! Good luck. > > no, i'm going to assume that most organisations and are going to read > the license and abide by it, the same way they'd read and abide by any > other open source/content license. > > >> it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're > >> using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's > >> entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have > >> collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not > >> you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up. > > > > Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database > is > > not at all evident. > > company A: publishing a map with no attribution, but it's at least > partly derived from OSM. > company B: publishing a map with no attribution and it's all their own > data. > > a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data > isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut > instinct. what do you do? > > If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing. But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my scenario.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
