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

[Simon Poole]

Am 24.07.2014 23:03, schrieb Alex Barth:
...
> Taking a step back, is the above use case not one we'd like to support
> without triggering share alike? I'm directing my question to everyone,
> not just Paul who's taken the time to review my example above.

IMHO the example is slightly flawed as to illustrating things that we
wouldn't want to be affected by share alike.

I expect if you ask a wider audience, the answer is likely to be: yes,
we would like (aka "it is in the spirit of the ODbL") the store
locations to be freely available and potentially to be added to the OSM
data, given that this is classical OSM content.

Most of the discussions around this issue in the past have revolved
around additional meta data present in the geocoded database (for
example lets say the list of employees at that location) and if -that-
would be effected by share alike. And I expect that you would likely
find a majority of the community which would same it is fair game for
that to remain unaffected.

Naturally this is just my gut feeling on the sentiments of the wider OSM
community.

Back to the general issue of the proposed guideline.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced that trying to better define and
clarify the issue by invoking the "produced work" clauses will lead to a
satisfactory result. I would suggest that at least a comparison (for all
your use cases) with a model based on "the information that is used for
geocoding is subject to share alike, but nothing else" (which has been
suggested in this discussion and previously a number of times).

If you apply this to your above example, the addresses would be subject
to SA (however no further information), and while potentially one could
infer that these are likely the addresses of the store locations, no
further information would needed to be disclosed*. Net effect
essentially the same in practical terms as in your proposal, but without
invoking produced work magic.

Such a model has a further advantage that it makes trying to nail down
the technicalities of at least forward geocoding less painful. For
example the fact that the geocoder that you use in the examples actually
returns object geometries aka the actual OSM objects in question.

Simon


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20140725/362e8854/attachment.pgp>