13 Dec 2019, 19:28 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:
> Hi Frederik,
>
> Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and the
> definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same.
> While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or
> "could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of
> "Derivative Database".
>
> From ODbL:
> “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
> includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
> other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
> Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
> Database.
>
> So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation,
> arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a
> Substantial part of the
> Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a
> substantial part of what was in the previous database.
>
Can you point me to legal definition
of "substantial part"?
I would expect that extracting boundary
data for locations is some other database
would count as "substantial part".
But maybe this loophole actually works
if "substantial" is defined to be unreasonably high.
> The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation,
> adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the
> Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents" because it is too minor of an inference.
>
It is certainly translation/adaptation,
but such use may pass as not
"substantial".
I hope that "not substantial" would
work for something like
(1) not repeated
extraction of location data for 100 points,
but I would be happy to be pointed to an
unbiased legal analysis of this term.
(2) not repeated extraction of boundaries
from OSM with no more than 100 nodes
in total
but it is hard to be to guess what can
be considered as substantial.
Probably depends on a lawyer and who
pays them to write a legal decision.
> With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very
> specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "> A collection of
> Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data
> if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the
> original aggregation was accomplished."
>
> In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the
> system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a
> Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's
> doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already
> has on a different layer than the other subparts.
>
I thought that it was claimed that it
is not translation/adaptation - but
given that argument relies on
"substantial" part then my example is
not applicable.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
