[OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Thu Oct 25 18:04:12 GMT 2012
Hi,
On 25.10.2012 17:30, Mikel Maron wrote:
> I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There
> is some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding
> services.
+1 - I think we're all (including LWG) still waiting for concrete use
case where somebody says: This is how I want to use OSM for geocoding,
this is what I believe the ODbL would mean for me, and this is why it is
unacceptable for my business.
I don't know if it has already been said, but there is a *vast* amount
of use cases where we need on-the-fly geocoding - user enters address
and is zoomed to location - which are totally unproblematic as no
derived database is even created.
In many other use cases I can think of, the ODbL's requirement may mean
an inconvenience and may mean that users can't be just as secretive as
they would like to be, but still sufficiently secretive as not to hurt
their business.
I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of "giving
up" and "too much at stake" sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding
which in my opinion it clearly isn't!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list