[Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

[Matt Amos]

80n wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Jeroen Carelse <jeroen at carelse.com 
> <mailto:jeroen at carelse.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks for the clear answer 80n.
>     One concern less.
>     So the biggest threat is not data loss (white areas on a map) but
>     rather "old areas"  which remain visible but cannot be touched?
> 
>     Hope this is a clear question, I doubt it but please give it a try
> 
>  
> Both sets of data will be available.  There will probably be two files:  
> odbl-planet.osm and ccbysa-planet.osm each containing different data.
> 
> You may be able to technically combine the two databases to create a 
> single map, but I don't think you would be able to publish it as the two 
> licenses are incompatible.  I think the most you can expect is that the 
> two maps could be viewed as separate layers.
> 
> Can anyone with a deeper understanding of the new license comment on 
> what would happen if you mixed the two datasets? 

it might be possible to produce works from a collective database of the 
two datasets, but if either database is modified (say, to remove 
duplicates) then the issue becomes harder to resolve.

my feeling is that using the OSM IDs to "hide" data in the ODbL-licensed 
dataset would mean that, when publishing works, only that "diff" (list 
of hidden element IDs) would need to be redistributed. it would hinge on 
the interpretation of whether it would "represent, in terms of 
obtaining, verification or presentation, significant investment". done 
automatically, probably not...

any produced works would, of course, have to be CC BY-SA.

i'll hand over to Richard, who will tell us why i'm wrong ;-)

cheers,

matt