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

[Mikel Maron]

I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another means in which to capture this spirit, I would support that as well.

As a former OSMF Board member and a member of the OSM community for 9 years, I believe my voice should carry weight in this discussion. Other current and former Board members, and prominent members of the OSM community, have also lent their weighty voices to this discussion. That's excellent, this is the purpose of legal-talk, it has been very enlightening on this issue.

But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.)

The OpenStreetMap Foundation, famously, supports but does not control the OpenStreetMap project. In this situation, I believe this would mean devising a governance structure to help answer such questions, and request that the OSMF in one form or another prioritize this issue. I hope that such can take shape soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and finally resolved. 
 

Sincerely
Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


On Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:04 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:
 

>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Consider a chain retailer's database of store locations with store 
>>> names and addresses (street, house number, ZIP, state/province, country). 
>>> The addresses are used to search corresponding latitude / longitude 
>>> coordinates in OpenStreetMap. The coordinates are stored next to the 
>>> store locations in the store database (forward Geocoding). 
>>> OpenStreetMap.org's Nominatim based geocoder is used. The store locations 
>>> are being exposed to the public on a store locator map using Bing maps. 
>>> The geocoded store locations database remains fully proprietary to the 
>>> chain retailer. The map carries a notice "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors"
>>> linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.
>>
>>
>>In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what forms a derivative database as part of a collective database. 
>Not following how I can make a Derivative Database from a Produced Work. Once it's a Produced Work it's a Produced Work, right? Sure if I abuse to recreate OSM that's one thing, but at this level?
>
>
>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.
>
>
>Forward and reverse geocoding existing records is such a huge potential use case for OSM, helping us drive contributions. At the same time it's _the_ use case of OSM where we collide heads on with the realities and messiness of data licensing: Do we really want to make a legal review the hurdle of entry for using OSM for geocoding? Or limit using OSM for geocoding in areas where "no one's ever going to sue"? How can we get on the same page on how we want geocoding to work and then trace back on how we can fit this into the ODbL? Geocoding should just be possible and frictionless with OSM, no? Shouldn't there be a way to open up OSM to geocoding while maintaining share alike on the whole database? 
>
>
>I feel we don't get anywhere by reading the tea leaves of the ODbL - what do we really want for OSM on geocoding?
>
>
>Alex
>
>
>(and yes, when I'm saying geocoding I'm referring to permanent geocoding here, where the geocoding result winds up being stored in someone else's db)
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20140728/97864a22/attachment.html>