----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony" <o...@inbox.org>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>;
"Richard Weait" <rich...@weait.com>; "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org>;
"David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:05 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
<legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases
David,
David Groom wrote:
This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be
good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental
to a
number of use cases of OSM data.
You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which
will then be an ODbL licensed database in its own right. That's the
classic "derived database" thing.
Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see
from
the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of the LWG)
that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative Database,
and
not an ODbL licensed database in its own right.
The correct answer is that it's both. It is a Database, with respect
to the license offered by the creator of the Derivative. And it's a
Derivative Database, with respect to the license offered by the author
of the original database.
Thanks for the clarification.
Regards
David
Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong, but it would have been
helpful
if someone had pointed that out before now.
Reading his answer, I don't think it's fair to say he was wrong.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
