I see that most serious uses of OSM would be substantial. It's really the qualitative part that I find difficult to parse.
> It sounds like you're confusing computer science and RDMS databases with the > legal concept of a database. For the rest of this message, I'm talking about > the legal concept of a database. Thanks for drawing the distinction between database systems and databases in the legal sense. It seems the latter allows for arbitrary divisions of data, irrespective of database organization. > Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data to > not consider user data part of the same database as the map data: osm.org I'm glad to hear that. So, is it fair to say that, as an OSM database user, one can distinguish derivative and non-derivative data field by field, without considering the schema? That is, the "derivative database" is just that collection of fields that are considered derivative? > This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by > associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by > the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by > users, perhaps?) I'm particularly interested in the application of the ODBL, in OSM's case, to routes. How are routes "observed physical features?" I understand that if one were to create an OSM-derived database of roadways that added on-street parking information, that that added data is an observed physical feature of those roadways that would trigger the sharealike provision. But how is it that routes - ordered collections of road segments - are considered derivative? And what distinguishes a derivative route from a non-derivative one? John _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
