Hi,
Anthony wrote:
Then again a PNG that
simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
database as far as we're concerned.
Why would it matter?
I think it is meant as an added safeguard against reverse engineering.
ODbL already says that if you extract the database from a Produced Work
then what you get is an ODbL database, so even if someone encodes the
full database into a PNG then releases that CC-BY, someone else who
extracts the database doesn't gain anything (he doesn't suddently end up
with a non-share-alike database). However it is even better if we have a
theoretical means to stop people from distributing such special PNGs
under CC-BY.
"If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work."
See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.
LOL, I hope you go with that definition.
Actually, I liked an earlier version better: "If someone makes something
from an ODbL dataset and declares it a Produced Work, then it is
considered a Produced Work." - It is refreshingly simple and doesn't
actually open any loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put
the PostGIS dump on a CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used
it would fall under the reverse engineering clause.
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
