On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 11:51:24AM +0000, Dair Grant wrote: > I'm not sure what format "a file containing all of the alterations" would > take. Does this mean a machine-readable list of the exact transformations > that were performed, or simply a human-readable summary of the > transformations made?
I take this as unspecified as the licence stands. It can be anything you like. I was going to comment on the wording because it requires a single file, but then I realised, just like OpenDocument Text can be represented in a single archive, so could a number of files describing transformations to the database, so it’s irrelevant. > If I map our fixed point lat/lons to 32-bit floats, I will create a > derivative database (32-bit floats can't represent all integers exactly, so > I've lost some information and can't go back). > > Do I need to publish exactly which floating point value each integer was > mapped to, or simply say "I converted all lat/lons to floats"? If you really did this manually, I’d say that you have a point, but, computers being computers, things are done programmatically. If you perform the transformations repeatedly, you’ll want some software to do it for you. That is your set of very precise instructions for transforming the database. Even if you didn’t have just one script that does everything, document what software you did use, and how, because you inevitably did use some software. I think the process needs to be consistently reproducable, and I don’t think “I converted all lat/lons to floats” is enough. > - A human-readable set of instructions that are "reasonable" > > Introducing "reasonable" means I can have my lawyer argue with yours over > whether "convert to floats" is a reasonable summary or not, and not have to > worry about being sued because I used an unusual rounding mode like > round-to-infinity and forgot to mention it. It introduces a whole host of ways of getting around the requirement to provide the alterations due to the ambiguity. Someone intent on using a database, but is reluctant to share their derivative or process to create the derivative (maybe they feel they’ve done something that gives them an edge over competitors), can word this set of instructions in such a way that it is difficult to reproduce. They can claim it is “reasonable”, and run the risk should anyone contend. The problem is, when it comes to bringing out the lawyers, not everyone is in a position to contend. If human readable instructions must be allowed, they should be such that each instruction is clearly defined, and the same transformation is consistently reproducable. It then comes down to contending that you can or can not reproduce the derivative database, which I feel is much more clear cut than “reasonable”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
