Hi, Arne Johannessen wrote: > How many bakeries are there in London? Without bothering to count, I'd > say Greater London surely has a lot more than 100, while The City > probably has less. (A hundred is the limit for 'not Substantial' > according to the community guideline for the meaning of Substantial.)
I wasn't out to discuss the "substantial" bit. I know that an insubstantial extract is practically unrestricted but what I'm after is using a substantial portion of the data base to create a Produced Work, which may then be distributed under a license of one's choice. > If we're talking a Significant portion here, it definitely is a > Derived Database in both cases (list and PNG). A reasoning according to which the map image with bakeries painted on would also be a derived database which, as I already said, is surely not the intention of OSM's implementation of the ODbL. >> or else the whole ODbL Produced Works idea would fall over and >> be useless > > So far I have yet to discover its actual use. Pointers are > appreciated. :) The actual use is that you can create map images from OSM data which then do NOT fall under the ODbL. This is essential if one is to combine data from, say, a CC-BY-SA data source and our ODbL data source into one map image; were the image considered a Derived Database, the ODbL viral aspect would kick in and require you to license the image under ODbL which would clash with CC-BY-SA's requirement to license the image under CC-BY-SA. Not being able to produce a map image that contains an OSM base map and combines them with elements from another share-alike license would be a show stopper for the whole ODbL effort. We're doing open data specifically because we want to encourage people creating derived works, not to stifle that activity. > This is what the Produced Work thing might have meant: Cases where the > database's contents appear outside the database theme's domain. No, the Produced Work specifically meant something like this: http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/12/2076/1410.png It is important to us that something like that does not require to be licensed under ODbL. I agree that if you have recently joined the discussion, or perhaps simply read the ODbL and thinking of a database in terms of the EU database directive, you'd be tempted to say that a PNG image like that must be a database. But if we don't manage to override that definition with a community norm, then one of the most promising aspects of ODbL, namely making it easier to deal with maps produced from our data, becomes void. 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
