Matt Amos wrote:
can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the
extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the
proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part
(i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else.
This is my thought also.
Frederik Ramm replied:
It would work, but I'm trying to think if this would have adverse side
effects.
Can this be compared to Google importing all of OSM into MapMaker
and then only making available the OSM part and not anything newly
created? Would that still count as a collective database? If not, then
where is the boundary?
The boundary is the ODBL definition (and interpretations thereof):
Collective Database: Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a
collection of independent databases in themselves that together are
assembled into a collective whole
So you have to decide whether the two databases are independent of each
other. Independent cannot mean no links at all; we're talking about a
single (collective whole) database here, and databases are meant to have
relational queries run on them.
Rather, it means one database was created without extracting Substantial
copyrightable[1] content from the other. Think of the dictionary
definition: not determined or influenced by someone or something else.
That's clear enough to me, at least.
But if you want to work through the two examples using the traditional (-ly
flawed ;) ) approach of applying programmers' logic to legalese:
a)
CiderInTheMorning loads an OSM pub extract (a Derivative Database) into
their database. The result is a Collective Database.
A new table, pub_to_osm, maps CiderInTheMorning pub ids to OSM node ids.
This table is essentially produced by matching the name of the pub and the
location. For example, if CiderInTheMorning has an entry for Rose Crown,
Charlbury, it's trivial to find the OSM ID from that - either by a query or
by hand.
This trivial linkage does not attract any copyright[1], and is effectively
just an artefact of producing a Collective Database. There is therefore no
further virality.
b)
Google adds OSM data for Vietnam to their existing MapMaker project in the
country.
If the two datasets can be kept independent of each other, then yes, they
can claim it's a Collective Database.
But as we know, that's impossible. Footpaths have to link to roads.
Duplication has to be removed. Roads have to be redrawn so they don't go
over shorelines. And so on.
This substantial linkage is subject to copyright[1] and therefore the
virality 'infects'[2] Google's existing and new user-contributed data.
I probably haven't phrased this as clearly as I could, but the key points
are to apply ODBL's usual Substantial test to the linkage; to remember
that Substantial is applied qualitatively and quantitatively (usual Waelde
reference here); and yes, to publish our interpretation of Substantial as
a guideline.
cheers
Richard
[1] or neighbouring rights as per usual
[2] those who are offended by these words may substitute their preference
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-%22virality%22-questions-tp25719138p25801874.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
