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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Jan 16 11:03:44 GMT 2013


Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth:
> 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(!)). 

As you say we have had this discussion before. The insubstantial
guideline is there to determine what  trivial, inconsequential usage of
the data is. On the one hand I suspect that if we (though some kind of
consultation process) raise the numbers, it is never going to be enough
(10'000, 10'000'000?). On the other hand raising the number at one point
essentially creates a new (CC0) licence. We have both a ethical
fiduciary duty to respect the wishes of the part of the community that
wants strong share a like (there are reasons to believe that this is
large group) and a contractual one (contributor terms) to follow due
process for a licence change.

It would not be out of the question to add a specific "geo-coding"
licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to
distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking
and up to now nobody has stepped forward  and taken ownership of the issue.

Simon







More information about the legal-talk mailing list