Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL
>You can certainly have a derived database that is not updateable (e.g. >simply drop all IDs). That is true but you can have at least the negative conclusion: if it is updatable then it is no Produced Work. I initially thought it would take out most of the value but it is not (completely) true. if someone creates a snapshot of the database, cuts off all IDs and builds a branch of OSM map then it is still highly valuable for a map producer (while most users are interested OpenStreetMap data that are updated). Consequently this means that if you put layer (not an image) of e.g. outlets like McDonalds on the map (and fulfill the criteria of substantiability - meaning more than 100) than you have to make these outlet database available. So far, I was assuming that a layer of POIs on top of the map is a Produced Work but it is not as soon as it becomes "significant" (volume wise). This also means that commercial POI providers cannot show POIs on top of the OSM map without their data falling under the Share-A-Like license. >"if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice >associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any >Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise >exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the >Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective >Database, and that it is available under this License." >This sounds as if you would have to "make [everyone] aware that [the >database] is available under this license" - but in my hypothetical >situation the database does not exist any more. I read it as you need to mention the origin of the Produced Work with its underlying license rather than providing the database. Any derived database needs only to be made available if it is made public either direct or indirect (through an application) to my understanding. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-questions-about-Produced-Works-under-the-ODbL-tp5080305p5084828.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL
Am 20.05.2010 17:57, schrieb David Mirchin: > 1. Is it clear that a "map tile" is an "image" within the definition of > a "Produced Work"--a work (such as an image...) resulting from using the > whole or a Substantial part of the Contents? Surely a map tile is an image. Also see the Produced Work community guideline at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines > Does it undermine something being a Produced Work if it results from > using BOTH a Substantial part of the Contents from a Derivative Database > AND some other data or database, such as a Derivative Database, a > proprietary database or user-generated data? Here's our reply to a similar question (at http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_63fshs97dc): 11.5. If I use OSM data to generate part of a new map, a POI or other metadata, or other image, and proprietary data to create the remainder of the map or image, is the result a Produced Work? Does it matter whether the user can tell the difference between the OSM data and my own proprietary data as long as I display the proper attributions? Yes, the result is a Produced Work. If the different parts of the image are created from separate databases, only the OSM data would need be released under ODbL (whether the user can tell the difference or not). A good guideline could be, neglecting purely stylistic issues, could the two sets of data be rendered completely separately without reference to the other database and then be composited together, i.e. one database is not being used to filter or otherwise modify the other database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
