[OSM-legal-talk] FYI Collective Database Guideline

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Thu Jun 9 15:06:33 UTC 2016

On 9 June 2016 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>> The LWG has just forwarded the text of
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to
>> the OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite guidance from
>> the OSMF.
> IIRC it was already noted by others that the lack of an example where
> share-alike applies kind of makes the whole thing appear unbalanced and
> endangers meeting the purpose to clarify 'where the line is drawn'.
> Independent of the actual content adding a non-trivial counter-example
> would IMO significantly improve practical usefulness and understanding
> of the guideline.


Also (and it may be deliberate) this guideline doesn't address the
question of what filtering / querying you can do with your collective
database. For instance, under the guideline I can take OSM restaurant
data, and add third-party ratings data to each entry, and it will be a
collective database. But what if I then do a query that returns the
locations of restaurants that have >4* ratings in a certain area and
just show those to users? Is this filtered dataset -- including the
ratings used to create it -- subject to share-alike, or is it still a
collective database of OSM restaurant names and locations, together
with independent ratings?

I wonder if we'd be better having a guideline that's based on rule
that any data used in a query with OSM data has to be shared. Data
that's only used in simple table joins does not. (As in the existing
guideline, it would be a question of whether you can achieve the same
results using such a method. Technical implementations that do things
differently for efficiency reasons don't count against you.)


Robert Whittaker

More information about the legal-talk mailing list