[OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

[Mikel Maron]

Maybe a clarification to the "Fairhurst Doctrine", which is that the trigger is pulled if the database referencing an osm foreign key contains "substantial" data that could be in OSM itself. For instance, we don't want restaurant reviews in OSM, but do want routes in some cases.
 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


>________________________________
> From: John Bazik <me at johnbazik.com>
>To: legal-talk at lists.openstreetmap.org 
>Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 9:06 AM
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
> 
>
>I have read a lot about the ODBL, including many threads on this list.
>I remain uncertain about what uses of osm data are allowed and what
>are not.
>
>The most subjective clause appears to be the one that differentiates
>between a collective work and a derivative work.  The tipping point is
>referred to as the "share-alike trigger."
>
>The Fairhurst Doctrine suggests that a database that merely references
>primary keys of OSM data could be considered a collective work, and
>would not trigger the share-alike requirements of the ODBL.  The example
>given is a site which attaches restaurant reviews to restaurants whose
>coordinates exist in OSM.
>
>I'd like to suggest three scenarios for your consideration, in order to
>hone in more clearly on what is or is not allowed under the ODBL.
>
>1) a site provides routes, determined subjectively, which are defined
>   in a separate database as lists of OSM primary keys.
>
>2) a site provides factual data, contributed by site members, of
>   roadways which are are stored as lists of OSM primary keys.
>
>3) a site stores geographic bounding boxes for (1) or (2) to
>   speed database lookups.
>
>Both (1) and (2) appear to me to fall under the Fairhurst Doctrine, in
>that they are separate databases that reference only OSM primary keys.
>The difference is that (1) contains purely subjective information, and
>(2) contains what may be "facts on the ground," and therefore more
>interesting to OSM.
>
>The third case is clearly derivative, in that the bounding boxes are
>derived from OSM data and stored separately, but the use here appears
>to me to be the least offensive, and the least useful as a derivative
>work to be shared.
>
>I understand that the ODBL has been accepted as-is by the OSM community,
>and that there is no practical way to change it now.  There are, I think,
>commercial uses of the data that I suspect would be acceptable to the
>OSM community but that would be subject to interpretation and so are
>legally uncertain.
>
>A strictly literal enforcement of the ODBL would make many commercial
>and non-commercial uses impossible, since referencing primary keys can
>be considered derivative and only independently obtained geo data can
>be considered non-derivative.  The Fairhurst Doctrine relaxes that
>constraint, but does not remove ambiguity.  So, for those who would
>like to join with OSM, but keep some data private, how do we interpret
>the ODBL?
>
>John
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20130714/d5fc9c51/attachment.html>