[OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[Rob Myers]

On 01/07/11 10:51, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> 
> I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being
> naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many
> different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with
> "additional contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with
> poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible
> for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the
> derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but
> incompatible with the CTs.

OSM is not the presumed beneficiary of this kind of thing. The
downstream users of the easy dodges are.

> I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your
> database/method unless someone requests it. But we have to assume that
> sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that.

That sounds like a *very* good idea. ;-)

- Rob.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110701/4b122f38/attachment.pgp>