<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><br><div dir="ltr">sent from a phone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 1 Feb 2021, at 01:11, Paul Allen <pla16021@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>My best guess is that it was in <a href="http://bookings.com">bookings.com</a> at one point, they forced</div><div>it on <a href="http://maps.me">maps.me</a>, it was later removed from <a href="http://bookings.com">bookings.com</a> (or moved</div><div>to its correct location) but <a href="http://bookings.com">bookings.com</a> didn't clean up on <a href="http://maps.me">maps.me</a>.</div><div>Leaving a ghost on <a href="http://maps.me">maps.me</a>. But I'm probably completely wrong about</div><div> that.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>yes, that’s what I suppose as well, my question was pointing into the direction whether this kind of use is possible under the ODbL without triggering share alike provisions, given that there are POIs of the same kind, i.e. possibly a derived database?<br><br><div>Cheers Martin </div><div><br></div></body></html>