[odc-discuss] ODbL: Does publishing Produced Work from Derivative Database trigger Derivative Database ShareAlike?

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:56:31PM -0500, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> What if the derived database is constantly changing?

I have no real answer to this.  I think snapshots would have to suffice.

> I'm not sure why you guys arrived at a 'diff' solution in the first 
> place, but I'm sure there's some reason I'm missing. If you instead just 
> said that the entire derived database needs to be available in an easily 
> machine readable format, would that get around some of the issues of the 
> 'diff'? Ignore the 'diff' entirely?

That would be nice, but when the database is constantly changing,
providing reasonably up‐to‐date[*] snapshots becomes more difficult to the
point that, should this become a requirement, people will not use the
database.

[*] What’s reasonable?

I see being able to specify the differences as an alternative to the
complete database as a way to ease the burden in some cases.  (Although,
now I think about it, this is dependent on the original database being
distributed elsewhere, and without this the differences would be
insufficient in constructing the derivative database.)

> Or, I see, you're trying to _avoid_ making the derived database
> 'sharealike' infected, but still require them to share certain things.

On the contrary, it is a way to arrive at the derived database, which is
still licensed under sharealike terms (forgive me if I don’t use the
word “infected” :) ).

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/attachments/20090304/3eba2556/attachment-0001.sig>