[OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

Nic Roets nroets at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 23:43:03 GMT 2011

Rob, I'm not sure what you mean.

So I'm going to give a simple example. Suppose someone has a table with
museums and their capabilities. He then combines it with OSM to create a
map. If the capabilities is something opaque like "type1" and "type2", then
the resultant map can be useless to us. (Reverse engineering is not

It's possible that an exact definition of "type1" and "type2" exist, but
requiring the person to publish it may be too intrusive. For example it
could involve some statistical scoring process like Page Rank (which
involves processing every web page on the Internet).

It's also possible that "type1" can be completely subjective e.g. the
person thinks that the paintings in the museum are beautiful.

So I really can't see how "useful source data" can have a water tight, yet
practical definition.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> On 25/11/11 11:07, Nic Roets wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> > <richard at systemed.net <mailto:richard at systemed.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful
> >     source data.
> >     (ODbL does.)
> >
> > I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve this. For example, if someone
> > decides to use some convoluted tagging system without publishing a
> > specification, his data will mean very little to the community.
> If it's that complex it's part of the data... :-)
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20111127/dbf21890/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list