On 26/11/11 23:43, Nic Roets wrote: > Rob, I'm not sure what you mean. > > So I'm going to give a simple example. Suppose someone has a table with > museums and their capabilities. He then combines it with OSM to create a > map. If the capabilities is something opaque like "type1" and "type2", > then the resultant map can be useless to us. (Reverse engineering is not > reliable). > > It's possible that an exact definition of "type1" and "type2" exist, but > requiring the person to publish it may be too intrusive. For example it > could involve some statistical scoring process like Page Rank (which > involves processing every web page on the Internet).
If the only way the database can function is with data not included in it, then the database is incomplete and not the source of the produced work. (IMO.) > It's also possible that "type1" can be completely subjective e.g. the > person thinks that the paintings in the museum are beautiful. That's a definition right there. :-) > So I really can't see how "useful source data" can have a water tight, > yet practical definition. It can however state that obfuscation or "don't wanna" aren't sufficient reasons for something not being a derivative database. :-) - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
