[OSM-legal-talk] conflicting statements in Community Guidelines

[Kathleen Lu]

Recall that under the geocoding guidelines, it is not considered a
substantial extra if "only names, addresses, and/or latitude/longitude
information are included in the Geocoding Results," "the collection is not
a systematic attempt to aggregate all or substantially all Primary Features
of a given type (as defined in the Collective Database Guideline) within a
geographic area city-sized or larger." This is not the same as
"restaurants" since there are additional features that can be included with
a restaurant (though some restaurants will only be name/address/latlong).
(Also, I would not conclude that 4000 restaurants is clearly insubstantial
under database protection law, I think that's an open question. I have not
seen definitive case law as to whether "substantial" is measured by
percentage or absolute number.)
Also "A collection of Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic
attempt to aggregate data if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase,
regardless of how the original aggregation was accomplished." so the
intended usecase of the collection would matter as well.
Recall that you can *always* store together, as mere storage is not a
public use that would trigger any ODbL obligations anyway. What you do with
the data once you put it together *and* how to put it together both impact
potential obligations under ODbL.
It is not a conflict with the Collective Database Guideline or the
Horizontal Map Layers guideline because those describe situations where two
databases are considered Collective Databases regardless of the intended
usecase or the tags involved, whereas the Geocoding Guideline specifics
tags, usecases, and extraction parameters that would not be considered
Substantial.
-Kathleen


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:09 AM Lars-Daniel Weber <Lars-Daniel.Weber at gmx.de>
wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> sorry for creating another topic, it's somehow related, but somehow
> different.
>
> Community Guideline "Horizontal Map Layers" doesn't allow to cherry-pick
> features within the same layer from a proprietary dataset to complete
> missing data in OSM without triggering share-alike.
>
> Community Guideline "Geocoding" allows cherry-picking as quoted here:
>
> > The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an insubstantial extract or
> > contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger share-alike obligations
> > and can be stored together with the non-OSM-based Geocoding Results
> > with no impact on the non-OSM-based Geocoding results, so long as the
> > aggregated collection of results does not contain the whole or a
> > substantial part of the OSM database. The cloud-based Geocoder is,
> > however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as described in Section 4.3
> > of the ODbL.
>
> Let's say, you're picking 5,000 restaurants, which is clearly a
> insubstantial part of all restaurants in planet file. For 4,000 items,
> you'll get coordinates from the proprietary dataset, for the other 1,000
> items you can pick coordinates from OSM. It won't trigger share alike, it's
> insubstantial and can be stored together.
>
> Isn't that a violation of "Horizontal Map Layers", since it's on the same
> layer?
>
> Confused,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20191014/7136dea2/attachment.html>