On 29/06/11 19:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
If I use software that builds an in-memory data structure which you
believe to be a database in order to make a produced work, how
would you suggest that I fulfil my obligation to make such derived
database available on
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
doesn't reduce the amount of information.
The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
licence, is to
Hi,
On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote:
I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an
in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and
database right sense of database). I don't see how the storage
mechanism makes a difference.
Would you
On 29/06/2011, at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
On 06/29/11 05:21, James Livingston wrote:
I don't think it would be treated differently, because I believe that an
in-memory data structure would still be a database (in the ODbL and
database right sense of database). I don't see how the storage
Hi,
James Livingston wrote:
If I use software that builds an in-memory data structure which you
believe to be a database in order to make a produced work, how
would you suggest that I fulfil my obligation to make such derived
database available on request?
I have absolutely no idea. It's one
If I use software that builds an in-memory data structure which you
believe to be a database in order to make a produced work, how
would you suggest that I fulfil my obligation to make such derived
database available on request?
I have absolutely no idea. It's one of the many things I
Hi,
Kai Krueger wrote:
If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what happened
in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of
derived databases that leads to a produced work, right?
Kai Krueger wrote:
Am I allowed to declare my png mapnik tile as a derived database, stick an
ODbL label on it an be done with it?
Then I don't have to reverse engineer my render to figure out if or if not
it produces an internal database and worry about having to maintaining a
snapshot of
Frederik Ramm wrote:
If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database,
then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what
happened in the black box, because you only have to share the last
in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right?
Hi,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
The Directive says a database
[snip Richard's quote and replace mine from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML]
Article 1
Scope
1. This Directive concerns the legal protection of databases in any form.
2. For the
On 23 June 2011 03:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
In today's operating systems, whether something is in a file or in memory
is a boundary that might easily get blurred. It would be kind of strange if
one algorithm that chooses to build a giant data structure in memory (using,
- Original Message -
From: ThomasB toba0...@yahoo.de
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:18 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community
Guidelines for temporary file
Dear Legal-list,
My question applies to all kind
Hi,
On 06/22/11 15:18, ThomasB wrote:
My point is that a user of software, and this is not limited to Garmin map
software, may not know what a software does in the background i.e. if it is
creating a (temporary) Derivative Database, a Collective Database or
whatever.
Yes. The software might
Dear Legal-list,
My question applies to all kind of software that process OSM data but I am
using Garmin maps as a popular example.
Generating Garmin maps with contours is pretty easy and sometimes completely
GUI driven. You select an OSM file, click a button and get a Garmin map. I
have
David Groom wrote:
As far as I can see, ignoring your specific example, and genearlising, the
unwanted implication of your clarification above would be that as long
as
someone deleted the derivate database they had created they could then
claim
it was temporary and therefore sidestep
- Original Message -
From: ThomasB toba0...@yahoo.de
To: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community
Guidelines for temporary file
David Groom wrote:
As far as I can see, ignoring
16 matches
Mail list logo
