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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Sun Mar 13 15:49:10 UTC 2016



Am 13.03.2016 um 16:33 schrieb 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. 
I wrote the opposite.

>> 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). 

The point that you are missing is that that selection is based on (a
relative fuzzy) feature class, not on the object themselves. In the case
of the example removing all restaurant objects from OSM and only using
your restaurant data, or vice versa.


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/fe186035/attachment.sig>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list