[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Sep 28 09:10:34 UTC 2015


I think you are clearly illustrating why we are wary of opening the can
of worms bending the definitions of the ODbL creates.

So now we not only have to take the leap of faith that geo-coding
creates a produced work*, we have to expand the definition of
substantive to allow essentially complete country extracts to be
non-substantive.

The later naturally makes the former unnecessary,  so we might as well
simply propose that geo-coding creates a non-substantive extract (which
has been suggested btw in a different forum and is in discussion in the
LWG).  In a way I would actually support this if geo-coding was a
clearly and tightly defined process, which, as I've pointed out earlier,
it isn't.

Simon

* I'm not convinced that this solves anything since derivative databases
used to produce a publicly used produced work are subject to SA


Am 27.09.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Alex Barth:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com
> <mailto:penorman at mac.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
>
>         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.
>
>
>     Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in
>     a geocoding context?
>
>
> If you methodically use a geocoder to reverse engineer the
> OpenStreetMap database, share alike would kick in. "Reverse
> engineering OpenStreetMap" would need a better definition and it would
> have to cover two dimensions:
>
> 1. Comprehensiveness (not just a "narrow extract" like addresses,
> buildings or businesses, but rather a comprehensive extract of the
> most important OpenStreetMap features together)
> 2. Geographic size (e. g. a country)
>
> We could establish these limits with an update to the community
> guidelines for what's Substantial.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150928/9984ac5c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150928/9984ac5c/attachment.sig>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list