[OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Tue Jul 15 13:59:50 UTC 2014
Hi,
On 07/15/2014 01:26 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse
> engineering OSM, then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work.
What if there are two processes run on a city extract - one is a "SELECT
* FROM planet_osm_point WHERE shop IS NOT NULL", and the other is a
yellow pages operator geocoding all their proprietary shop information
with OSM and storing the results in their proprietary database.
Let's assume for a moment that both were to result in an almost
identical database, give or take a few mismatches.
The first would clearly be a derived database - no matter for what
purpose the SELECT command was issued.
And the second - because it was made "with the purpose of geocoding" -
would not be a derived database but a produced work.
Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, it seems to require a
*lot* more explanation because it doesn't sound very convincing to me.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list