On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
>
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>> Open Database License (ODbL)
>> “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases”
>
> Yep. Exactly.
>
> CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of "creative
> content" as a collective work. Wik
Erik Johansson wrote:
> Open Database License (ODbL)
> “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases”
Yep. Exactly.
CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of "creative
content" as a collective work. Wikipedia regularly combines GFDL text with
CC-BY-SA photos, and no-one bats
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>> If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database
>> out of anything that is not connected on a map level to OSM data.
>> That doesn't seem very viral to me.
>
> OSM's mission statement is:
>
Erik Johansson wrote:
> If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database
> out of anything that is not connected on a map level to OSM data.
> That doesn't seem very viral to me.
OSM's mission statement is:
"OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as st
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 1. OSM pubs (Derivative Database)
> 2. CiderInTheMorning data (presumably proprietary)
> 3. table mapping OSM ids to CITM ids
If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database
out of anything that is not connected on a
Matt Amos wrote:
> are you suggesting that we change our guideline on what is substantial?
I am. Well, not so much "change", more "clarify".
"Substantial" in EU Database Directive terms can mean quantitative
and/or qualitative.
I agree that extracting a "pubs of Britain" dataset and distribut
Matt Amos wrote:
> can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the
> extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the
> proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part
> (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else.
This i
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matt Amos wrote:
> i think the more useful case to most people will be to use the OSM
> data geographically. if i started beerintheOSM i'd want to use OSM for
> as much of the geographic data as possible - that's kinda the point of
> OSM isn't it?
>
> so, assuming
On 10/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matt Amos wrote:
>>> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our
>>> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be
>>> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet
>>> would not be subs
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
>> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our
>> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be
>> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet
>> would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wan
On 10/7/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the
>> extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the
>> proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part
>> (i.e: the list of IDs)
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
> can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the
> extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the
> proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part
> (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else.
It
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Matt Amos wrote:
>> this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction
>> between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the
>> question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database
>> and incor
Hi,
Matt Amos wrote:
> this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction
> between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the
> question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database
> and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of
> m
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
>> which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm
>> storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM
>> (name/location/ID), i definitely h
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Dan Karran wrote:
> What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to
> add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what
> would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be
> released as well, or again something
2009/10/6 Matt Amos :
> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
> which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm
> storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM
> (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the
> (name/location/ID) reco
Hi,
> no-one is suggesting that the extraction of names, locations and IDs
> would be somehow outside of the ODbL. any site using these as lookup
> keys would have to release that data under the ODbL.
[...]
> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
> which rates pubs an
Matt Amos wrote:
> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
> which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm
> storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM
> (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the
> (name/location/ID) records -
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Turner
wrote:
>> On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote:
>>
>>> hi legals,
>>>
>>> i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the
>>> ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the
>>> ODbL to have viral (GPL-
On 10/5/09, Laurence Penney wrote:
> It seemed clear that such data extractions would not be considered
> public domain, simply by virtue of having no grid reference or lat-
> long. They were part of MasterMap, hence regarded as chargeable data.
that's the suck-'em-dry licensing model ;-)
> So e
Interesting stuff, Matt.
Back in 2005 I asked Ed Parsons, then still at Ordnance Survey, a
similar question about OS TOIDs. I wondered if I could use TOIDs as
tags in my own database of photos, in the sense "photo x depicts TOID
y" - of course omitting all location data associated with the T
hi legals,
i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the
ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the
ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less
viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the
general f
23 matches
Mail list logo
