[odc-discuss] Basic Produced Work question

[Jordan S Hatcher]

Thanks for the comments Richard.

The change from "Use" to "Convey" was relatively recent -- within the  
past few weeks -- and is something that went back to the pro bono  
lawyer for OSM. It's an effort to simplify some of the licensing  
issues around being able to use a database to produce a work when  
using other sources (other than ODbL licensed) for the work.

It (like the rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open  
for discussion.

Thanks

~Jordan

On 2 Mar 2009, at 17:33, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss