[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