Frederick Ramm wrote: "I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a
problem in this. Am I
perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?"
It seems like some others definitely share your concern. Thank you for
bringing up the issue.
Simon Ward wrote: "It gets more difficult when you start pro
Hi,
Dair Grant wrote:
> I don't have a better phrasing for 4.6b, but I would like to allow
> alterations to be specified as:
>
> - A literal set of transformations to apply (e.g., a lookup table
> or code that could be executed to apply the transform).
Sorry, I somehow overlooked this part
Hi,
Dair Grant wrote:
> It may be I have misunderstood how this is intended to apply, but I think
> both 4.6a and 4.6b end up making derivative databases (effectively any
> mechanical processing of the original content whatsoever, IMO) problematic.
>
> In many cases, generating "a file containing
Hi,
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> We need to clarify this once and for all: Where exactly in the following
> typical rendering chain does the thing cease to be a database in our
> definition?
>
> * download (section of) OSM data
> * make changes to OSM data
> * render OSM data into vector graphics for
Rob Myers wrote:
> With the GPL, the right to request the source is attached to receiving
> and using the binary. Withe the AGPL it is attached to being a user of
> the service. You can't just wander by and say "hey! please can I have
> the source?", you have to be a user of the binary.
>
> (In pr
Simon Ward wrote:
>> this could mean that
>> anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
>> have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
>> snapshot time where someone cares to request it.
>
> So be
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I
> perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?
Not at all; I am still reading through the draft, and have exactly the same
concern.
It may be I have misunderstood how this is intended to apply, but I
2009/3/1 Andy Allan :
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I
>> perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?
>
> Nope, not at all, I'm exceptionally concerned about the implications
> on the cyclemap db
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> >> this could mean that
> >> anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
> >> have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
> >> snapshot time where someone cares
Simon Ward wrote:
this could mean that
anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would
possibly
have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
snapshot time where someone cares to request it.
So be it.
Do you have any suggestion on how to achieve this te
Hi,
to make this clearer:
Simon Ward wrote:
> ODbL already defines derivatives, produced works and collective
> databases separately, and is much more permissive for the latter two.
> Distribute a derived database, share it please.
The spirit of the database share-alike license is to force p
Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
>> this could mean that
>> anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would possibly
>> have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
>> snapshot time where someone cares to request it.
>
> So be it.
Do you have any suggestion on how to
Hi,
Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> It means perhaps that almost any extract from OSM database is derivative
> database, because even one single road is "substantial" in quality
No, I don't think this is the usual interpretation of "substantial".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remot
Jukka Rahkonen writes:
>
> Where actually goes the limit between database and something else? I believe
> that if I convert the data from osm format directly into ESRI Shapefiles then
> I
> do not have a database, or do I? But if I let ArcGIS to store the shapefile
> data into its own persona
Simon Ward writes:
> > The lawyer's answer is: "Need clarification here. From my reading, this
> > example would seem to constitute a Derivative Database under the ODbL."
>
> It’s a database, derived from the original. To me it’s a derived
> database. It does need clarifying to say just that.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> "Having to grant access to pgsql data base"
> ---
>
> In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking
> OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by runn
16 matches
Mail list logo
