[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Alex Barth]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is
> defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap
> derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in
> getting rid of other areas of contention (for example geo-coding).
>

The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still
leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind in
third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with third
party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data particularly for
geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete enough. The ability to
use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with (non-license-compatible) third
party data is exactly what would would make a gradual adoption of OSM
possible.

Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation
that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of
narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the
ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM
data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses
should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs
should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth.

This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the
"Geocoding is Produced Work" guideline
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150922/8a3c8327/attachment.html>