On Friday 22 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote: > > Wait that doesn't seem right. You cannot violate guidelines because > they are examples and explanations, not restrictions or a law. And > then, when the guidelines say a dataset "may be" considered > derivative, it doesn't say it is derivative (or otherwise). You > cannot violate a text that says "may be", except by mathematically > proving it is wrong either way.
The guidelines are interpretations of the practical meaning of the license and therefore you can do things with the OSM data that 'violate the guidelines' in the sense that they are something the guidelines say is not covered by the license. If this interpretation is correct or not can be a matter of opinion of course. > If I didn't care about the views of the community, I wouldn't > continue this discussion. I want to either convince you or other > people that it's okay to put proprietary data on top of the OSM data, > or learn the reasons why this leads to a derivative database, > requiring to open the proprietary part. In the latter case we at > maps.me, of course, would need to simplify our data processing. I did not say or imply you don't care about the views of the community, i just said that if you do something that according to your interpretation is covered by the license but contradicts the interpretation in the community guidlines that would communicate a lack of care for the views of the community. > I guess that falls down to the definition of "intermingling". That's > the word I don't understand in technical sense. Is any intermingling > bad, or there is a good kind of intermingling? Neither in my example > not anywhere else do I make a derivative database, as I believe. Does > the process of intermingling lead to derivative database in any case? OK - i try to be clearer: If you use ODbL data in combination with proprietary data - no matter in what form this data comes in - these two data sets form either a collective database or a derivative database in terms of the ODbL. If it can be regarded as a collective database depends on the question if the ODbL part of that combination and the proprietary part are independent databases. As i have already explained your modified ODbL part (the hotels with some of them removed) is only intended and only useful in combination with the other, non-ODbL part and the combination does not work with the non-modified data which clearly disqualifies it from being independent and as a result the combination would be a derivative database. And since you objected to use of these terms - yes, intent and usefulness are significant regarding the question of independence of the databases. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
