Jonathan Harley wrote:
> Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
> I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
> doesn't reduce the amount of information.
The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
licence, is to
On 29/06/11 19:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
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
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
The Directive says a database
[snip Richard's quote and replace mine from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML]
"Article 1
Scope
1. This Directive concerns the legal protection of databases in any form.
2. For the pur
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
> then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what
> happened in the black box, because you only have to share the last
> in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, rig
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I've been thinking about that. It would certainly be within the
> legal definition of a database to call a PNG file a database.
Not sure which legal definition you're looking at, but there's never such a
thing as "certainly" where the EU Database Directive is concerned. :)
Kai Krueger wrote:
> Am I allowed to declare my png mapnik tile as a "derived database", stick an
> ODbL label on it an be done with it?
>
> Then I don't have to reverse engineer my render to figure out if or if not
> it produces an internal database and worry about having to maintaining a
> snaps
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what happened
in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of
derived databases that leads to a produced work, right?
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
> then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what happened
> in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of
> derived databases that leads to a produced work,
>>> 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?
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea. It's one of the ma
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
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?
I have absolutely no idea. It's one o
On 29/06/11 11:02, James Livingston wrote:
To your point, what happens when someone loads a .osm file into JOSM? First,
I'd claim that a .osm file is a database. Obviously not a relational database
that gets handled by SQL-using software, but still a database. I'd also claim
that the in-memory
On 29/06/2011, at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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
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 t
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
Hi,
On 06/22/11 15:18, ThomasB wrote:
My point is that a user of software, and this is not limited to Garmin map
software, may not know what a software does in the background i.e. if it is
creating a (temporary) Derivative Database, a Collective Database or
whatever.
Yes. The software might we
- Original Message -
From: "ThomasB"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:18 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community
Guidelines for temporary file
Dear Legal-list,
My question applies to all kind of software that process OSM data but
16 matches
Mail list logo
