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

[Erik Johansson]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>> If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database
>> out of anything that is not connected on a map level to OSM data.
>> That doesn't seem very viral to me.
>
> OSM's mission statement is:
>
> "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps
> to anyone who wants them."

Open Database License (ODbL)
“Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases”

> So it's all about "the map level". If you're an agitator for every single
> form of content in the world being share-alike, all well and good, but
> that's not OSM's role.

Changing license isn't supposed to just be a pretty name for allowing
anyone todo anything as long as they call it Collective Database.
That's why I asked for better definition of it.

Does it matter what kind of data is available in the PilsnerAtDawn
proprietary database. Lets say they have location/names of pubs that
are not available in OSM, then is it still a Collective Database?

I'm sure you think Free vs. public domain is an interesting discussion...

/emj