[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
zerebubuth at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 09:33:28 BST 2009
On 10/8/09, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Matt Amos wrote:
>>> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our
>>> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be
>>> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet
>>> would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use
>>> any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry
>>> from OSM.
>> are you suggesting that someone wanting to run beerintheOSM would have
>> to have a worldwide scope? it wouldn't even be possible to be
>> country-specific because that would give it a geographic scope and
>> therefore depend on the geometry?
> I was thinking that if he relies on *our* geometry then he's making a
> substantial extract, whereas if he uses some other means to list the
> pubs in, say, England and then just references our nodes, that's ok then.
does that mean it's not ok to look at the lat/lon to find the list of
pubs, but it's ok to look at the name tag? is that still true if i
produce a planet derivative which automatically adds is_in tags based
on the administrative boundary data - he can use that is_in tag?
> In one case he has the data already (name of pub + as much knowledge
> about the location as required for his application) and only links to
> OSM as an additional source of info. In the other case he is using OSM
> to find information in the first place.
i think the more useful case to most people will be to use the OSM
data geographically. if i started beerintheOSM i'd want to use OSM for
as much of the geographic data as possible - that's kinda the point of
OSM isn't it?
so, assuming beerintheOSM has a list of IDs, names and locations of
pubs, let's say extracted by xapi query using the UK bbox, does that
mean it would have to release its whole database, or just the
OSM-derived parts of that database?
More information about the legal-talk