[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
mike at ayeltd.biz
Tue Mar 6 16:34:56 GMT 2012
On 06/03/2012 15:34, Ed Avis wrote:
> Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be
> public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?
UMP only collect "road routes". With the caveat that I probably still do
not understand *exactly* the intended use, (if anyone knowledgeable
wants to jump in, please do), I think the issue breaks into two parts.
The first issue is to augment their Garmin map. So, yes, it is very
likely they could use our data as an independent Produced Work layer.
The second issue is that they are very reasonably asking reciprocity -
if OSM can continue to use UMP road data, so UMP should be able to use
OSM road data. And that is the difficult one. I was hoping to work
with defining what "use" actually meant. It is possible that UMP would
never actually want to copy in an OSM road or any details about it into
the UMP project database. They just want to be able to compare the road
networks, see if there is anything missing or potentially anomalous and
go out and independently map it. Frederik puts it well:
"Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of
the analysis might be derived and have to released.) "
However, if I were in UMP, I would want to be cautious and seek
clarification from OSMF. Which is what I am seeking to give. Doing it
specifically for another free and open project with known goals seems
safe, doing it for anyone- as Ed, Frederick and Richard are reasonably
suggesting - seems dangerous without very carefully defining what
"verifying" could mean, and more importantly, what it does not mean. If
we do not find a resolution, it will be a great shame for both projects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk