[odc-discuss] Basic Produced Work question

Mon Mar 2 17:33:08 UTC 2009

Rufus Pollock wrote:
> [snip]
> In my understanding, this is not so: the "interim" database if not  
> being publicly conveyed and will therefore not have to be shared.

I agree (FWIW) that the licence does say that, but I'm rather  
surprised that it does. It looks almost like an error that has cropped  
up in the latest revision.

Let's say that the scenario is making a printed map using mostly OSM  
data, but also adding some other, missing streets.

According to this reading, there'd be no compulsion under ODbL v0.9  
for the map publisher to make the source for these added streets  
available.

As I read it this wasn't the case in the previous version -  
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/open_database_licence_2008-04-10_draft.pdf - where 4.6 describes the publisher as "publicly Using a Derivative  
Database".

Since 4.5b here deliberately states that no derivative is made "out of  
the integrated experience" (i.e. the cartography), it's fair to think  
that a derivative database _is_ made by combining OSM data with extra  
streets, and that the source has to be made available under 4.6.

But in the new v0.9 draft, the clause only applies if you "Convey" a  
derivative db - a newly introduced term - and Convey is expressly said  
not to apply to Produced Works. This looks contrary to original ODbL.  
It's also very much contrary to what I understand as the wish of the  
OSM community and the OSM Foundation, though of course this is and  
should be a general-purpose data licence, not an OSM-specific one.

Incidentally, I'm very enthusiastic about the licence in general, and  
pleased to see its progress: this is the only significant "trap" I can  
see.

cheers
Richard