[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jani Patokallio wrote:
> Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker 
> of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team 
> and possibly even contribute back to OSM!

On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of
OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared)
or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne,
we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with
each other, Collective if you haven't.

On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we
should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding
(in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say
that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less
substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a
connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I
may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William
Hill vs BHB*)...

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licensing-of-works-containing-geocodes-pinpointed-on-OSM-data-tp5730883p5730991.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.