Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Jonathan Harley]

On 01/12/11 00:33, James Livingston wrote:


On 1 December 2011 00:18, Jonathan Harley > wrote:


By way of analogy: suppose I sent you a private email which
included a license saying if you publicly use my email, you must
share with me any other emails you combine it with. My email sits
in your inbox together with other emails, and you can do searches
across all of them. If it's a unix system, they're probably all in
one single file. But have you really "combined" my email with your
other private emails? My email is sitting there unmodified and
completely independent of all your other private emails; it is not
itself combined with them. So no, "storing next to" is not
"combining". You can safely share a screenshot of your mail
program without having to send me all your other private emails.


The problem with analogies is that they are analogies and aren't the 
same as the original thing. As a similar one, what if instead you sent 
me your mailbox rather than a single email, and I imported all your 
mail into mine (so are probably stored in the same file). Although 
none of the actual data (emails) have changes, they are stored 
together (possible even in a SQL database rather than flat files).


I don't know if that would count as two collective databases or a 
single derived database.


As long as you can still tell which emails came from my mailbox, then 
definitely collective. Being stored together does not form a derivative 
database.


(I think we may have some terminology confusion here: in IT we tend to 
think of a database as "all the data that can be accessed through this 
software" - but when lawyers say database they really mean dataset, and 
how it is stored and retrieved isn't relevant.)


If your mail software threw away some of the header information in my 
emails (specifically the envelope-to field) so that you could no longer 
separately search my emails and your emails if you wanted to, that would 
probably be a derivative database.




If the rendering of the second output depends on the first
dataset, the Produced Work created from the second dataset is not
independent of of the first dataset.


No, the produced work isn't independent of it, but the datasets
are still independent of each other, that's my point.


My point is that to actually do the rendering, you will have created a 
single database containing both datasets in the process (albeit 
possible as transient in-memory data structures). I don't think we're 
really disagreeing, just both unsure as to where the line is and 
guessing on different sides :)




I think we may be just making different assumptions about what rendering 
involves? I was thinking of a simplistic renderer that would simply 
examine each map feature independently and decide whether/how to render 
it based on what had already been rendered (for example onto a tile), 
but you're right, another way would be to build an in-memory structure 
representing parts of both and then do something with the combination.


I don't really think that in-memory data structures count as databases, 
though. The ODbL says "using this Database... to create a Produced Work 
does not create a Derivative Database". I would have thought that the 
software doing its work would count as "use" for this purpose.


It seems to me that this would be something a future version of ODbL 
could be clearer on, though.



Jonathan.

--
Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd

Email: m...@spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Rob Myers]

On 29/11/11 22:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> IMHO there is a difference between a travel photo and a map rendering.
> This is a jpeg:
> http://www.tnooz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ITA-QR-code-1.jpg

This is a perfect example of the difference between the content and the
structure of a database. :-)

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>> I think the word "independent" also applies to "data" and "other materials".
>
>
> I don't think so. Claiming that a collection of data would not be a database 
> if the Data is Not independent  does not make much sense IMHO

Well, the wording of the definition is such that it's quite ambiguous
whether the word "independent" applies only to the first noun phrase
(works), or to all three.(works, data and other materials).

I am likely to think that the latter interpretation is the case
because a traditional way of thinking of a database is as a collection
of individual records arranged systematically and individually
accessible, such as a collection of individual phone numbers with
corresponding names, in a phone book. It doesn't make much sense to be
able to access individual entries if you have to combine them with
other entries to make them useful.

Relational databases blur this traditional sense but that's because
you use relational databases to normalize redundant data. If you don't
normalize your data, you arrive back at the "traditional" database
where each record stands on its own.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> I think the word "independent" also applies to "data" and "other materials".


I don't think so. Claiming that a collection of data would not be a database if 
the Data is Not independent  does not make much sense IMHO
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk