Thanks and I'll have a closer look in the archive! Peter.
> To answer all your questions in one go: there has been a lot of > discussion (especially on this mailing list) about the problems/issues > you raised. And there have been some efforts to better clarify these > things. I suggest reading the mailing list archive. > > My own opinion is that the legal issues here are murky and I agree > they could be interpreted differently by different lawyers/people. And > I guess it is very difficult to write a good license text for such > type of license, since there are a lot of different ways the data > could be used, lot of corner cases and a lot of ways the licence could > be circumvented by interested parties if written too specifically. I > guess the protecting power of ODbL is in its murkiness :) > > I would not give myself too much hope with interpretations of > "trivial" and "substantial", in my opinion your use case falls well > outside of a trivial and unsubstantial use. > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter K <peat...@yahoo.de > <mailto:peat...@yahoo.de>> wrote: > > Thanks Igor! > > I still have a problem when the "substantial" part of the license > apply. Also in the wiki there is an explanation about "trivial > transformation". Are there some examples when both of them applies? > > The wiki raises more questions then it solves as it e.g. does not > say if the example is a trivial transformation or not: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline > > > > > Both, I think - this means you publicly distribute the > Derivative Database, which has its implications. It also means > > that CGIAR-based data is then available to public through a > license different (and more permissive) than the original > > CGIAR license, which the owner is probably not going to be happy > about - since he then cannot enforce the > > "/If interested in using this data for commercial purposes > please email/" rule. > > Ok, makes sense! BTW: why is such a modification not allowed for > OpenStreetMap? IMO this limits the applications a lot as also > enterprise guys cannot just buy a commercial license of OSM so > they would need to *completely* stay away from OSM! > > > > > But again, I'm not a lawyer :) > > The thing with ODbl is that even lawyers are not sure because > there are no (or too few) court cases. So the community has to > make this very vague ODbl definition more specific. This > clarification would be important to increase the adoption in the > enterprise. > > Regards, > Peter. >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk