[odc-discuss] First Pass on ODbL Comments

[Matt Amos]

i'm afraid you will consider this to be too general, but here goes
anyway. in one of your responses, you say:

> Produced Works are taking the contents of the database (the data) and
> doing something with them. Derivative databases are taking the database
> as a whole and then doing something to it to create a derivative database.
> One is just the contents, the other is all the "stuff" (field names, tables,
> structure, etc) that makes it a database.

just to clarify my understanding: a database dump (say, for backup
purposes) is a produced work and isn't required to be odbl licensed?
further, section 4.7 means that re-loading the backup restores the
odbl license?

if the dump is operated on directly without being "arranged in a
systematic or methodical way" to produce a further derived work then
the only requirement of the odbl is the reverse-engineering clause of
section 4.7?

i'm not making a judgement of the license, i'm just trying to ensure
that i understand any obligations fully.

thanks for your forbearance,

matt

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> Officially the comments on have closed.
>
> That said if you can still send send them though -- probably best here
> at this point. We would also ask that such comments be limited, if at
> all possible, to specific drafting suggestions/changes rather than
> being general or of the "use-case" variety.
>
> Rufus
>
> 2009/3/24 Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> Just to let everyone know we've done a first-pass on all the ODbL
>>> comments and hope to post up a summary soon.
>>
>> thanks! i've been reading the responses, but there are still some
>> things i am confused or unclear on. would you prefer i post follow-up
>> comments on co-ment, or here in this list?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> matt
>>
>