[OSM-legal-talk] Regarding The New OSM License
richard at weait.com
Wed Jan 16 23:44:56 GMT 2013
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Rob <smarttiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would like to ask / discuss with you the new license for OSM if you do not
> I have a website that I would like to integrate/include OSM map tiles into.
> What I would like to clarify is if I would be required to share the data
> which is / has been collected through the website.
The short answer is, "It depends". The intent of the license is that
improvements to the data would be shared with OSM. But it is also
recognized that there are lasses of data that are inappropriate to include
in OSM. Let me offer two examples:
Restaurant reviews. It is generally accepted that we don't want subjective
reviews of restaurants in OpenStreetMap. If you are collecting reviews we
probably don't want them.
Restaurant locations. There are many restaurants in OpenStreetMap and if
you are collecting or correcting restaurant locations, then we would want
them in OpenStreetMap.
There are certainly many examples that can be drawn that will fall clearly
in either of the above classes. There are probably many examples that
would fall in a grey area between those examples.
You've been careful to not reveal too much about your application, so I'll
have to make some guesses about what's going on. This is obviously not
legal advice. And is also without prejudice.
For your use case 1) Because you state that you have addresses in your
non-osm data, and because OSM has and wants addresses, there may be a
requirement for you to share that address data. You might consider
searching on OSM addresses if you are prevented from sharing the non-OSM
For 2) it seem like you are geo coding based on OSM. If the data is
interesting to us, it should be shared with OSM.
For 3) seems like share alike is not triggered.
For 4) seems like share alike is not triggered.
If you can provide more information, perhaps we can take better guesses?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk