[OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Mon Oct 7 18:05:22 UTC 2019

> Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of

> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
> topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
> appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since
> they're specific for the current task.
> My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one shapefile
doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one license.
If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you have
traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database Guideline.

> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that
> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
> > insubstantial
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is
> non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay,
> not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen.
> It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say
definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on
whether it's insubstantial, since if your usecase is as a filter to select
POIs, then you can do that whether the borders make up a substantial
extract or not, and you are willing to provide attribution anyway, so you
do not need to conclusively avoid ODbL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20191007/a81dfccb/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list