<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 06/03/2012 15:34, Ed Avis wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:loom.20120306T153333-634@post.gmane.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?
</pre>
</blockquote>
UMP only collect "road routes". With the caveat that I probably still
do not understand *exactly* the intended use, (if anyone knowledgeable
wants to jump in, please do), I think the issue breaks into two parts.
<br>
<br>
The first issue is to augment their Garmin map. So, yes, it is very
likely they could use our data as an independent Produced Work layer. <br>
<br>
The second issue is that they are very reasonably asking reciprocity -
if OSM can continue to use UMP road data, so UMP should be able to use
OSM road data. And that is the difficult one. I was hoping to work
with defining what "use" actually meant. It is possible that UMP would
never actually want to copy in an OSM road or any details about it into
the UMP project database. They just want to be able to compare the
road networks, see if there is anything missing or potentially
anomalous and go out and independently map it. Frederik puts it well:<br>
<br>
"Personally, I don't think that <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>verifying<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential
problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a
valid use of our data that would not create a "derived database". (The
database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and
have to released.)
"<br>
<br>
However, if I were in UMP, I would want to be cautious and seek
clarification from OSMF. Which is what I am seeking to give. Doing it
specifically for another free and open project with known goals seems
safe, doing it for anyone- as Ed, Frederick and Richard are reasonably
suggesting - seems dangerous without very carefully defining what
"verifying" could mean, and more importantly, what it does not mean.
If we do not find a resolution, it will be a great shame for both
projects.<br>
<br>
Stumped,<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>