On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:09:08AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
represents a quantitatively substantial part of the general contents of
the protected database. A quantitatively negligible part of the
contents
of a
All,
Although I have not read up on any database legal cases (and do not have
the time to), I do have some concerns as to the definition of substantial.
My assumption is that insubstantial use means that the ODBL does not apply
(and therefore attribution and share-alike does not apply). If this
Luis,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, I hope you don't mind
that I've referenced the mail link on the page for resource reading!
On 30/04/2014 00:10, Luis Villa wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it
wouldn't hurt to make that more
From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:09 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Without going further into the details of the many drafting shortcomings
of ODBL (which, to be clear
contains a long discussion of what might be considered
substantial in a geo context post-BHB:
http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Guideline-review-Substantial-tp5804512p5804651.html
See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guidelin
e for guideline text.
The Open Data License defines a term 'Substantial' which is then used
in the License to define a threshold about when certain clauses come
into effect.
Substantial is a term defined in
[Before addressing these technical legal issues, I should note that I
represent the Wikimedia Foundation, not OSM/the OSM community. While I hope
that in most cases the perspective of the WMF and the perspective of OSM
are in alignment, OSM members and the OSMF should definitely seek their own
From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Reminder that Simon has pointed out here quite recently that ODBL claims
to be a binding contract
