[OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

Ilya Zverev ilya at zverev.info
Sun Jul 10 05:41:14 UTC 2016

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> From my perspective it is as Simon put it:
>> In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to
>> prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind).
> Now you can of course disagree with that assessment but so far you have
> not brought up any convincing argument for that.  Just because your
> exact use case is not mentioned in the Horizontal Layers guideline does
> not mean it does not apply in analogy.  It does not matter if you use
> proprietary data to add features missing in OSM data or if you use OSM
> data to add features missing in proprietary data - the license as i
> read it is symmetric in that matter.

 From my perspective, Simon mentioned the guidelines, argued that they 
refer to the case in maps.me, while they state the reverse case (with 
removing duplicates from OSM), and then finishing with the summary you 
quote. I agree that one of the examples in the Collective Database 
Guidelines does not specify a method of de-deduplication, though, for 
example, prioir text allows for databases to be considered separate when 
"the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other". And they don't.

As I see it, we have two independent databases. Complying with ODbL 
4.6.b we provide "A file containing all of the alterations made to the 

Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, and 
on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to hide 
the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 km. Does 
in that moment when a user clickes the options, the combined map become 
derivative? Because the application removes parts of OSM map based on 
proprietary data, which means, by your implications, that that creates 
an inseparable references.

Now, let's use in this example not the whole OSM dataset, but only 
hotels from it. And the proprietary data is also hotels. What changes?


More information about the legal-talk mailing list