Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Hi, On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote: I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and database right sense of "database"). I don't see how the storage mechanism makes a difference. Would you therefore say that before I can use proprietary software to process an ODbL data set, I would have to request from the software provider a legal statement about whether or not it does create a database internally? If I use software that builds an in-memory data structure which you believe to be a database in order to make a produced work, how would you suggest that I fulfil my obligation to make such derived database available on request? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
On 23 June 2011 03:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: > In today's operating systems, whether something is in a file or in memory > is a boundary that might easily get blurred. It would be kind of strange if > one algorithm that chooses to build a giant data structure in memory (using, > for example, a lot of swap space) would be treated differently from another > algorithm that does exactly the same, but writes its data out to a temporary > file (which might be a database). > I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and database right sense of "database"). I don't see how the storage mechanism makes a difference. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
