[OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Tue Jul 9 12:11:04 UTC 2013


One of the issues with this discussion is that we are using one word to
describe many different things, that we tend to view as one from a usage
pov. IMHO it would be difficult to see how partial
matching/auto-completion of addresses would not simply be generating a
substantial extract and hence a derivative database if actually stored.

On the other hand I could probably make a case that  if addresses that
already contain sufficient information to query a database successfully 
are associated with a single approximate coordinate-tupel (and not with
an OSM object as Nominatim can do) that the result could amount to a
"produced work". But that is just IMHO.

Simon


Am 08.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Peter K:
> Hi there,
>
> I would like to have clarification on this subject as well (but be
> aware that I'm just in the process of understanding the OSM license ->
> see the other thread).
>
> What I do not understand with the OSM license is the following
> (constructed) example:
>
>  * I have a separate geo coder application based on OSM data
>  * I have my own user database which is public to every individual
>
> Now what happens when I use the geocoder to let users do
> autocompleting its addresses in my "somehow public" database? I have
> lots of users so this "manual" copying from OSM would be *substantial*
> but at the same time it is clear that I cannot make the database
> itself public. Or is the resulting database still separate as there
> are clean "OSM columns"?
>
> Regards,
> Peter.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130709/58a3602d/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list