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

[Chris Hill]

On 27/09/15 22:54, Alex Barth wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Nice try Alex, but no :-)

Your definitions are *way* too generous. I would say reverse engineering 
parts of the OSM database, such as just addresses can easily be 
substantive and therefore trigger share alike. I would say that the 
geographic size of a few streets would also be substantive and trigger 
share alike.

I know you want to move away from share alike but you won't do it by 
making a barn door definition like that IMHO.

-- 
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly