On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harley <j...@spiffymap.net> wrote: > On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> Jonathan Harley wrote: >>> >>> Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the >>> sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, >>> in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work >>> based on a database, ever. >> >> For print, yes, that's about the size of it. > > I don't see what print's got to do with it.
Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says "If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each". However... > Any rendering, whether to paper > or to a screen, changes the bits used; One argument which could be used is that a rendering to a screen is not "fixed", therefore it is not a derivative work. For a US case where this was successfully argued, see Galoob v. Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.). However, I believe there was a more recent ruling regarding website "framing" which largely limited the application of Galoob v. Nintendo to websites. > if you take that as the meaning of > modified, then there could be no "unmodified" renderings of any database, I agree. > which means in turn that there could be no collective works, so the > conditions about being separate and independent would be irrelevant. Did you read my earlier explanation? The rendered map is released under CC-BY-SA, and then *that* can be part of a collective work. Alternatively, the database, as it exists on disk, is a collective work with the other files on disk being other works which are part of the collection. There's no bar against collective works. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk