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

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:06 schrieb Simon Poole:

> 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.

I think, I don't understand your interpretation at all. Maybe a language
barrier. You said, I could use my 3rd party data to extract data from
OSM missing in my data to improve the coverage WITHOUT being forced
to share-alike. Of course, but only for internal use.

Example says, you're forced to release the data under OdbL when: "You add
restaurants in one area from non-OpenStreetMap data based on comparison
with OpenStreetMap data in other layers."

Why should taking data from OSM to improve my coverage make it
non-share-alike on a produced work or online map?

> 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.

The last part of your sentence isn't conform to the guidelines.
The example for "no need to share" clearly says: You can add a layer of
the same feature class (restaurants or hiking ways), if you make your
best reasonable efforts to exclude ALL the features of the same class
(restaurants or hiking ways). Sure, the OSM data still will be under
ODbL, but your features (hiking ways in this examples) won't be.