On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's > going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said > yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be > presumed to be using a derived database.
it is the same difficulty. it can be almost impossible to detect whether someone is using OSM data or not, especially if the output isn't tiles or extra data has been mixed in. > The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't > differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and > company B who does. You counter example, that maps are just as difficult is > hardly relevant, and incorrect anyway. In most cases you can detect the > infringment because you would have the evidence in front of you. my counter example is relevant, as it shows that the situation isn't really changing; only the terminology is changing. clearly we aren't going to be able to agree on this, but for the benefit of anyone else with the stamina to have reached this far down the thread: 1) if a company is publishing produced works, and isn't making an offer of a database available, you can contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have forgotten to make an offer of their derived database available. 2) if a company is publishing maps, and you suspect they're derived from OSM but aren't appropriately attributed or licensed, you can contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have forgotten to put the appropriate attribution and license on their maps. the situation we have at the moment is that most of these situations are clearly evidenced. with the ODbL i expect that to remain true, since it's going to be pretty obvious that company X's routing/geocoding/tiles aren't rendered directly from planet and will involve a derivative database. furthermore, i expect that in the future, as currently, most license violations will stem from an incomplete understanding of the license, or forgetfulness, more than maliciousness. > The reality is that the derived database rule is almost unenforceable in the > way that you describe it. It would be a massive drain on OSMF resources to > try enforcing such a policy and would certainly be a very strong case for > many commercial companies to avoid OSM data like the plague. i don't believe so. have you talked to any commercial companies who would be more put off by the new license than the old? cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
