I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying. Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer.
Cheers, Matt On Jul 8, 2010 10:18 AM, "Andy Allan" <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Oliver (skobbler) <osm.oliver.ku...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Frederick,... Either you mis-spoke in this sentence, or you are wrong with this assertion. If you have a derived database, and make a produced work, you are required to make the derived database available under the ODbL. That's practically the whole point of the ODbL! Section 4.5b, which amongst other things is a classic "could do with some scoping parenthesis" piece of legalese, is only clarifying that if the produced work is made up from a collective database, e.g. "(derived + some other db) =>produced work" then the collective db is not considered derived - i.e. the some-other-db can stay non-ODbL licensed. But if you make a produced work (actually, if you "publicly use" said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in any case (4.4a and 4.4c). As for Frederik's initial question, part 1. is unavoidably share-alike as soon as the produced work is publicly used. Part 2 I'll leave for others. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.or...
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk