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

[Martijn van Exel]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
>>
>> Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of
>> Substantial doesn't matter.
>
> A database that is "based upon the Database, and includes any translation,
> adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the
> Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents" is a derivative database.
> This doesn't exclude databases where the items in the database are produced
> works, e.g. a database of geocoding results.
>
> If you are extracting insubstantial parts of the database (keeping in mind
> that repeated insubstantial can be substantial) than the ODbL imposes no
> requirements, not share-alike nor attribution.

To me it seems that there is a demarcation line between ephemeral
geocoding on the one hand, where a singular coordinate pair is
extracted from OSM as the result of a geocoding operation for the
purpose of immediate use, leading to a Produced Work, and 'permanent
geocoding' (as mentioned in the guidelines) on the other hand, where
geocoding is used in a systematic way, leading to a Derivative
database. Correct? This should be made clearer in the definition part
of the guideline then, which now encapsulates both these use cases
stating the result of geocoding is 'one or more "Geocodes". Geocodes
are then stored either permanently or temporarily [...]'.


-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/