Hi, On 11/04/2014 04:47 PM, Preet wrote: > I don't understand how this falls under the share alike terms of the > odbl. If I have two separate databases with restaurant feature data (say > the first is from OSM, and the second is under a non-obdl compatible > license), and I combine the two to display restaurants in an > application, why would that require me to share the second database?
It doesn't require you to share the second database. But it would also in all likelihood lead to duplicate entries where your second database and OSM both have a certain feature. If this is not a problem for you, or if for example your renderer simply doesn't draw a second restaurant icon when one is already there, then good for you. You're simply drawing two completely independent databases on top of each other. You don't need to share your second database. If, however, you make a *selection* from your second database, taking only those items that are not already in OSM, then that selection (not the whole second database) becomes a work derived from OSM - because OSM was used as a "mask" to produce it. > Is the argument that selectively deciding what to show in a produced > work from a 'closed' database by comparing against an odbl licensed > database somehow imposes that the closed database must also be odbl? Not the closed database, only the selection made from the closed database with the help of ODbL-licensed data. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
