[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Thu Feb 28 10:12:17 UTC 2013
The use of the term "Database" in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.
I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up. I'm still waiting for a concrete (geocoding) use case which
we would reasonably want to allow without triggering share-a-like.
Simon
Am 28.02.2013 05:54, schrieb Jake Wasserman:
> Alex,
> I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely
> storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
> alike. But on the use cases wiki page
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
> 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
> together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS,
> NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
> derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
> Derivative Database.' In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
> together does not trigger share alike.
>
> Just trying to get some clarification.
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com
> <mailto:alex at mapbox.com>> wrote:
>
> Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the
> same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using
> the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web
> site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear
> that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
>
> (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that
> complicated, but that's another story).
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob <smarttiki at gmail.com
> <mailto:smarttiki at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.
>
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> > trivially disprovable.
>
> Where is the line in the sand?
>
> For example I have a website which is driven by several
> databases whichinclude everything from website members info t
>
> I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive
> map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement /
> inclusion, routing, etc...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> <richard at systemed.net <mailto:richard at systemed.net>> wrote:
>
> > WhereAmI wrote:
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
> >> data is used.
> >
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> > trivially disprovable.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
> > Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130228/05bd5181/attachment.html>
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list