[OSM-legal-talk] FYI Collective Database Guideline
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Thu Jun 9 15:40:55 UTC 2016
On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
> I can understand the desire for a negative example, but:
> - this is documentation of use that we are happy with, not of the
But we are happy with uses that invoke share-alike as well, aren't we?
> - as the preamble says there may be other ODbL compliant ways that to
> not invoke share-alike to combine datasets outside of those detailed
> in the guideline.
> - using a contrived non-trivial negative example has the "it is
> definitely going to happen" problem that it will be seen as a ruling
> in use cases which are not on our table and of which we don't know
> the details.
I try to avoid getting again into a discussion on the guideline itself
here (i voiced my concerns previously - no need to do this again at
this point). In any case it would be the first single sided guideline
that does not draw a line between two fields of data use.
And as i read the text of the guideline it implies certain limits, for
"non-OSM data completely replaces a particular type of geometry or data"
implies the situation is different in some way if it does not completely
"uses either all OSM data or no OSM data for that property"
implies that a data mixture in properties changes the situation.
In other words: having precisely formulated points in parameter space
but not having limits defined in relation to these points looks odd.
More information about the legal-talk