Hi,
in a recent discussion on the German OSM Intertubes, we discussed
whether ODbL would give a map producer the freedom to license his work
under a noncommercial license.
My take was "yes of course", because I always thought of "a map" as a
produced work.
(The background was that we ha
This is pretty much in line with Francis' claim about copyright being
on maps, and copyright law not stating anything about the form the map
comes in, but of course without court cases on the matter we're all
left guessing.
Next problem with the Garmin maps, suppose they use extracts from
Geofabri
Frederik Ramm writes:
>"If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is
>a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work."
>
>I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose
>of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the
On 09/04/2010 12:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
Frederik Ramm writes:
"If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is
a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work."
I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose
of the GMAPSUPP.IMG
On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote:
> In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of
> data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something
> intended to be used visually.
What about a SVG file of a substantial part of the database, SVG files
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 09:49:18PM +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote:
> > In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of
> > data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something
> > intended to be used visually.
>
>
On 09/04/2010 12:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote:
In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of
data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something
intended to be used visually.
What about a SVG file of a subs
On 09/04/2010 01:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
On 09/04/2010 12:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote:
In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of
data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something
intended to be used vi
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
> If you
> render as a PNG, without additional metadata you are similarly going to
> have difficulty reverse engineering it (admittedly more difficulty than
> with vector graphics, which much more closely resemble the geodata).
> The fact that you
On 5 September 2010 00:00, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared
> back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that
> will be a serious demotivator for many contributors.
Unless the CTs change,or an exce
Hi,
80n wrote:
Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png
than it would be to inport a dataset.
It really depends on the situation. OSM has no concept of precision, so
if I give you a list of 100 POIs on a 1024x2048 map of England, you
simply wouldn't be able to
s
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Garmin-Maps-Produced-Works-tp5496944p5501135.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 04/09/2010, at 10:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> If it absolutely has to be one thing or the other I'd say it is a Produced
> Work.
Does it have to be though? I can't see anything in the ODbL that says Derived
Database and Produced Work are mutually exclusive.
A produced work is:
"a work (such a
13 matches
Mail list logo
