Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose "database" is it?
Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > A *database* is a bunch of stuff in my computer's RAM. *Any* stuff at all. It need not even be in your computer's RAM. And not everything in your computer's RAM is a database (it needs to have been arranged systematically or methodically). > Database *protection* is granted only to DBs that have had a subtantial > investment on them. That's how I read it too. > - I did not invest much time while drawing these two pub nodes in $EDITOR, > but > I'll only upload them if you slap a ODbL to them the moment they are > integrated in the main DB. That was what I meant with the number 3 in my original post, yes ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose "database" is it?
El Jueves, 11 de Diciembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: > > Heck, I'd even hold that a data array of any kind held in RAM qualifies > > as a database. Not just because it's an array, but because somebody > > decided what goes into that array and in which way. > > But the database directive does not extend protection to each and every > database; there has to be "substantial investment" in obtaining, > verifying or presenting the contents. OK, while I have to agree with you on this one, I'd like to make a couple of things clear here. A *database* is a bunch of stuff in my computer's RAM. *Any* stuff at all. Database *protection* is granted only to DBs that have had a subtantial investment on them. > Now while I can just about see the substantial investment in getting out > on a rainy day and collecting 50 road geometries with your GPS, there > can be absolutely no doubt that entering the name of the pub around the > corner will never come under "substantial investment"... Now, I can have two points of view here (let's say, 1a and 1b): - I did invest a substantial amount of effort and time getting this data into $EDITOR. It is already a DB, and I'll slap a ODbL on it before it goes off my computer. - I did not invest much time while drawing these two pub nodes in $EDITOR, but I'll only upload them if you slap a ODbL to them the moment they are integrated in the main DB. (Read that last line as "the moment my unprotectable DB gets merged with the protectable DB" and/or "the main protectable DB is derived thanks to my unprotectable DB") And then comes 1c, AKA "I don't care about f***ing licenses": - I have this data (DB) in $EDITOR, and I don't really care if I did a substantial investment on it or not. All I know is that the main (protectable) DB will get modified (derived) with my DB (either protectable or unprotectable, it doesn't matter). Anyway, learning Potlach should be considered a "substantial investment" Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega La vida es una enfermedad mortal de transmisión sexual. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose "database" is it?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are > considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. To be protectec under the database directive, you need to make a "significant investment" for the database to be protected. You also need to be a citizen of a EU or EEA country. IANAL (could a lawyer please explain whu we keep saying this?) - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose "database" is it?
El Miércoles, 10 de Diciembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: > 1. Each mapper has his own database, of which he makes a copy available > to OSM under ODbL which then creates a derived database. In that case, > of course, each mapper is a licensor, and OSM is a giant work derived > from many individual databases. Yep. Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Si funciona, no lo arregles. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose "database"is it?
Peter, Peter Miller wrote: > Where is the official input from the foundation to all this? Consider the possibility that there is no official input because the Foundation has not discussed these issues. Relicensing is immensely complex. Each day I think about it I come up with a number of different fringe scenarios or questions like my "who is the licensor". The database directive on top of which the ODbL is modeled was never meant to cover a collaborative database like we have; it was designed to protect the investment of large companies that let their employees create big databases by amassing otherwise non-copyrighted facts. Lawyers or laymen, we cannot expect that people come up with "official" answers to our questions within a day - much less can we assume that the Foundation board has coincidentally already provided well-formulated answers to arising questions. They're just people like you and me, and even though we have talked and thought about the licensing stuff forever, we manage to come up with new and unprecedented license questions every other day ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
