[OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

Alex Barth alex at mapbox.com
Tue Jan 15 17:02:12 GMT 2013

On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman:
>> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use
>> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of
>> the incompatibility of the two licenses.
>> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the
>> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the
>> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because
>> of the incompatibility of licenses.
> With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial
> extract
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline)
> your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts
> would normally be considered derivative databases and would require
> release of the underlying data with the ODbL.

The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)). Not being able to geocode w/ OSM is hurting the project right now. We've discussed this issue earlier [1], I know next action is to gather examples of where OSM is currently not applicable in geocoding scenarios. This is one good example.

[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2012-October/007283.html

> In both cases you are naturally free to simply produce such results on
> the fly. My reading of the ODbL would seem to indicate that if you for
> example geocoding on the fly you may not even have to provide an
> indication from where you results were derived.
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Alex Barth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633

More information about the legal-talk mailing list