<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I've renamed the subject because it has
gone way off topic, but I wanted to come back on Tobias' comment
because it struck a chord and I would like to share a personal
research topic. I am curious to evolve the idea further to see if
there is any positive value.<br>
<br>
Open data is a different animal to software source code and
highly-creative works and I suspect it will a few more years yet
until we understand it all fully.<br>
<br>
I personally see this "unwanted data" is an underlying theme
under many of the issues the LWG has been looking at under the
Community Guidelines process :-<br>
<br>
Geocoding: So I have to share a patient's medical record because
it is geocoded against OSM?<br>
<br>
Dynamic Data: So if I use OpenStreetMap car park location data, I
have to share the real-time occupancy data?<br>
<br>
Algorithmic transformations: So I thought of this clever idea to
pre-format OSM data for fast loading into my game. Now I have to
share my that or my algorithm?<br>
<br>
General maps: I want to use OSM to show locations of restaurants
on my restaurant review site. Now I have to share the reviews?<br>
<br>
And so on. Now many of these issues may be resolved, and in some
case have been resolved, in other ways which remain within the
scope of the current ODbL version. But a very simple way of
dealing with everything in one go is to say:<br>
<br>
<b>The OpenStreetMap project collects long-lived geospatial data
as a set of intelligently or machine-made
physical observations only.</b> [Wording needs improving!]<br>
<br>
And then to say:<br>
<br>
<b>And share-alike only applies to what we collect.</b><br>
<br>
Again, it just a research topic. I see it as benefiting the
OpenStreetMap project enormously but at the same time potentially
debasing the whole concept of share-alike for the wider open data
community ... perhaps those restaurant reviews should be shared?<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 30/04/2014 23:35, Tobias Knerr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53616C8E.2000803@tobias-knerr.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 30.04.2014 19:37, Rob Myers wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the
original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require
people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them,
not (just) OSM.
If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood,
never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the
creation of a "produced work".
But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a
lot more than just "giving data back when you fix things". Thus it would
be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that
spirit, as much as I wish that was enough.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>