[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/19/2014 07:18 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community 
> guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes 
> which tighten and clarify without changing intent.

I like the message but I am not sure if it really works, license-wise.

Suppose I have my own data set with restaurant POIs, A.

Now I take an OSM database with restaurant POIs, B.

Now I compute the difference, B-A - "all restaurants that are in OSM but
not in my own data set".

This database, B-A, is clearly derived and needs to be shared. However
it does not contain anything that is not already in OSM so sharing it
would be of little use to anyone.

Now I build a restaurant finder web site that polls both databases, the
"A" and the "B-A" database.

And you say: Because of this I now need to share A.

But I don't see how this can ever be possible. At what point has A,
which has not been modified the slightest in the whole process, been
"tainted" with ODbL? The only thing that has any descendance from OSM is
the B-A database.

I see what you would like to achieve and I support the goal, but I can't
see how it could work since A is never modified - A is totally static,
and how can A's license be changed by using it alongside a second data set?

Apart from that there's another question mark in my mind and that's
"feature types". Is the definition of feature types arbitrary - could I
make a restaurant database where I take "all revolving Italian rooftop
restaurants" from OSM and all others from a different data set, or is
"revolving Italian rooftop restaurant" too specific a feature type?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"