[OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.03.2016 um 14:36 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:06 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> I specifically limited my point to the case in which there was no
>> changes to the OSM layer due to the 3rd party layer and vice versa.
> Yeah, I've understood this point, but the guideline doesn't care
> about a change to the OSM layer! The layer either modified by the
> new features or unmodified, but with new layers. And that's the really
> interesting part.
It does (care about a change to the OSM layer). It addresses exactly the
case that you could use your 3rd party data to generate an OSM extract
that doesn't contain your data, generating a complement to your data
allowing you to improve your coverage for a specific feature without
being subject to share alike. 

>> In other words: there is no interaction between the layers other than
>> they are visually superimposed.
> Let's say, a corporation just ovelays their new hiking track on the
> hiking map, with other tracks being on the map already.
>
> Most of the people can't render their own basemaps and remove existing
> tracks. Will it complement the other features? That's exactly what the
> quoted guideline is about: It's talking about new layers with the
> same feature class.
>
If it is just coincidental that none of the corps hiking tracks are in
OSM then that is just a coincidence and it is not clear to me what the
issue should be, if they remove all tracks that are already in OSM then
the layer has been modified by OSM data and is subject to our licence terms.

Simon

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20160313/4630bf43/attachment-0001.sig>