On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I have said consistently that the Australian section of the map stands
to lose
an enormous amount of data in a change to ODbL.
This is a strawman argument.
If - and I really mean if - If we had to remove the Australian
Hi,
Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
Sure, any Derivative Database that is made available to a 3rd party falls
under the share-alike. No doubt about that. This handled in section 4.4. The
exceptions are handled in the following section 4.5.
In case of your Produced Work, you make the Produced Work
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
But if you make a produced work (actually, if you publicly
use said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in
any case (4.4a and 4.4c).
I think I you are right with the only limitation that the sharing is
covered in 4.6 whereas
in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5270065.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying.
Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an
unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of
the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer.
Cheers,
,
Oliver
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5267171.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk
Hi,
Oliver (skobbler) wrote:
a derivative database that is only used to create a Produced Work is
excluded from the share-alike:
4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 (Share-alike,
remark Oliver) do not apply in the following:
a. [..]
b. Using this Database,
