[OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 04:53:56 UTC 2014

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:

> How would the Collective Database approach work if the OSM Database must
> remain unmodified to be part of a Collective Database?
> The definition of Collective Database seems to be tailored to use cases
> where the OpenStreetMap database *in unmodified form* is part of a larger
> database. I can't quite conjure up a real world example, but the ODbL is
> pretty clear about this:
> > “Collective Database” – Means this Database in unmodified form as part
> of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together are
> assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective
> Database will not be considered a Derivative Database. - See more at:
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/#sthash.mDtnZAPO.dpuf

The "this Database in unmodified form" means the particular database that
is licensed under ODbL. It can be the OSM database itself, or any database
derived from the OSM database that must in itself be licensed under ODbL.

So if you did any transformations on the OSM database (ex., converted it
into a form suitable for a geocoder), the transformed database is licensed
under the ODbL. You can either publish this transformed database or provide
the software used to create the transformed database to comply with the
license of the source OSM database.

Then, this geocoder database can become part of the collective database.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20140825/7e2e60c9/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list