[Osmf-talk] Community Guidelines, ODbL and CT

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.04.2015 um 11:38 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
...
> 
> This second guideline seems to weaken the provisions of the ODbL rather
> than being just an explanation how to interpret it. Besides some
> technical problems ("Feature Type" is not a term defined in the ODbL, I
> am not sure whether it is an established legal term, but I guess it is
> not), I do not see how this kind of license limitation is covered by the
> Contributor Terms, which do state:

Note this guideline is, if anything, actually stricter than the text of
the ODbL, which does not prohibit producing a collective database of
elements of the same kind at all.

> 
> IMHO we need to vote on these amendments to the ODbL to make them become
> effective, the OSMF does not have a mandate to change the licensing
> provisions without asking the active contributors.

For those that are new here: there was ample opportunity to comment on
and make suggestions for modifications to the community guidelines
before they where formally accepted by the OSMF board.

The guidelines do not introduce a new licence, they codify existing
practice (for example allowing regional extracts of OSM data to be used
with other data), common sense (for example by not requiring everybody
running a tile server to make planet files and diffs available), and in
a few cases try to clarify where we currently see the line between
derivative and collective database in practical terms (the guideline in
question).

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/osmf-talk/attachments/20150421/222365ac/attachment.sig>