[OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems

[Andy Allan]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I
> perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?

Nope, not at all, I'm exceptionally concerned about the implications
on the cyclemap db. I'm combining PD SRTM data and OSM data, and as
far as I'm concerned making both original sources available should be
sufficient. That way every piece of geographic data used in the
cyclemap is available. Being forced to offer a postgis dump would suck
massively.

And never mind for me - I've got the time and energy to deal with it
if needs be. But it'll also suck for people doing things like my
public transport experiments - as soon as you put up a picture of one
of your experiments all of a sudden you'll have some guy demanding a
dump of your postgis db. Seems overkill, and like you say, the
intention should be to make the geographic data available, not the
specific instance of (perhaps processed) data.

Cheers,
Andy