[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

[80n]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data

> >> isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
> >> instinct. what do you do?
> >>
> > If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing.
> >
> > But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing
> grounds
> > in your example.  That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my
> > scenario.
>
> are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the
> ground" rule? ;-)

The two are not mutually exclusive.  Ordnance Survey are well known for
having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs.


>
> it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have
> been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a
> way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically,
> while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that
> data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be.
>
> I think you've lost the thread.  Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a
derivative database.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20091212/2c265ac5/attachment.html>