[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions

[James Livingston]

On 06/10/2009, at 11:30 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
> so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks
> linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it
> OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform
> "fuzzy" linking?
>
> my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be
> released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would
> still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information.

That sounds good in theory, but I think at some point getting out the  
locations and names of things could be "Extraction and Re-utilisation  
of the a Substantial part of the Contents".

Am I allowed to mine the database for the name and location of all the  
pubs and restaurants in the world, without having the data fall under  
the ODbL?  If not, how could it become okay if I claim to just be  
using them as lookup keys? I guess you could have a database with all  
of your proprietary data, and second one which acts as a link between  
the fuzzy-OSM data and IDs in your database, and only release the  
second.