[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

Olov McKie olov at mckie.se
Fri Mar 1 19:30:27 UTC 2013


>Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:48:41 +0000
>From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
>On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:
>>
>> As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
>> (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit 
>> history
>> where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited
>> anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner
>> where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning 
>> operations
>> where based on data history in the database.
>
>Yes. This was to ensure there was no possible legal conflict, and no 
>possible emotional upset.
>
>> Now imagine this:
>> A decliner adds street names on two streets Street A and Street B,
>> they have an intersection. Then I by "Local knowledge" know that 
>> there
>> is a shop in the intersection of Street A and Street B add that shop
>> (Shop A) to the map. Someone else adds another shop (Shop B) to the
>> right of the shop I added (Shop A) based on the fact that Shop B is
>> right of Shop A. Now the license change happened and the street names
>> where removed, but as far as I know the shops where left as they had
>> no direct history in the database related to the decliners edits. The
>> positions of Shop A is directly deducted from the decliners
>> copyrighted information about what the streets are called. The
>> position of Shop B is then based on the position of Shop A, therefor
>> indirectly deducted from the copyrighted information of the decliner.
>
>Which part of the data from the decliner's edit sets is incorporated in 
>your additions?
>
>- Rob.


Hello!

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I wrote my last mail and obviously managed to misplace a few important sentences of the point that I was trying to make.
But Rob you where spot on with what I missed. I will repeat the entire paragraph for clarity, additions are at the end.


Now imagine this:
A decliner adds street names on two streets Street A and Street B, they have an intersection. Then I by "Local knowledge" know that there is a shop in the intersection of Street A and Street B add that shop (Shop A) to the map. Someone else adds another shop (Shop B) to the right of the shop I added (Shop A) based on the fact that Shop B is right of Shop A. Now the license change happened and the street names where removed, but as far as I know the shops where left as they had no direct history in the database related to the decliners edits. The positions of Shop A is directly deducted from the decliners copyrighted information about what the streets are called. The position of Shop B is then based on the position of Shop A, therefore indirectly deducted from the copyrighted information of the decliner. We as a community do not see it this way. We see it as our data is clean, and the added shops are not deducted from the surrounding map data, although the street names where needed to accurately place the shops on the right street intersection, and thereby giving them correct coordinates. 


Again sorry for my email editing mistake, I never meant to imply that our current database is not clean from a license point of view.

/Olov



More information about the legal-talk mailing list