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

[Tom Lee]

> In a way I would actually support [geocoding results being considered
non-substantive extracts] if geo-coding was a clearly and tightly defined
process, which, as I've pointed out earlier, it isn't.

Are you referring to this thread, Simon, or a larger conversation
elsewhere? If the latter, I'd e grateful for a link.

While I agree with you about the slipperiness of geocoding in the abstract,
as Alex points out it should be possible to narrow the scope within a
guideline. After all, when we license geocoding data from big proprietary
vendors, their lawyers, at least, feel it's possible to define geocoding
and to define unacceptable use in a way that protects their assets. Without
naming names or specific terms, I can point to this language from our TOS
as an example of how these requirements are passed along:

"You may not use geocoding results to develop a general database of
locations or addresses for any neighborhood, city, state, country, or other
such geographic region, or to develop any other general purpose digital map
database."

Naturally it would be preferable to work out a guideline that gives users
more freedom than proprietary vendors allow us to provide. But I think this
at least points in a useful direction (though of course the mechanism here
would be the non-substantive status of the geocoding product, not a bespoke
contractual provision).

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>
>
> This would work.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> We could work on a definition of geocoding for the purpose of a guideline
> though.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fbe07df9/attachment.html>