[Osmf-talk] ODbL and Geocoding

[Simon Poole]

I believe you are trying to throw two different kind of fish in to the
same kettle :-)

The collective database guideline was formerly known as the metadata
guideline. In the past the topic was discussed in depth and I believe
that the distilled sentiment was clearly that such a rule should exist
in some form (see for example the discussion of the "Fairhurst
doctrine"). The main problem was, and is, formulating such a principle
in a way that works in the context of the licence and is not based on
fuzzy "interesting" concepts. The current proposal is fairly liberal,
but not without restrictions. But more important: there are actual use
cases (actual: as in inquiries going to
legal-questions at osmfoundation.org) from users that would be enabled by
clarifying the rules.

On the other hand  geo-coding is a supposedly high profile issue that
however doesn't seem to really concern the typical user (essentially no
enquiries), likely because the specific use cases that may run afoul of
share-alike are mainly an issue for a small number of service providers,
not for a wider user base. On the fly geo-coding is not an issue (aka
your typical "search" function), inhouse geo-coding of sensitive data
neither (despite lots of FUD) and small volumes of bulk-geo-coding are
covered by the insubstantial rule.  As I've pointed out before in any
case the issue can be solved within the context of the ODbL together
with the collective database guideline without placing an undue burden
on bulk geo-coders.

Or to put it differently: there are lots of interesting legal questions
for OSM around licensing of geo-data with the ODbL and the CC by/by-SA
licences, geo-coding just isn't really one of them. The push to present
this to outside parties as such a burning issue is why there are
concerns that this is simply a ruse to get more leverage with the
community and the OSMF for a licence change.

Simon

Am 14.02.2016 um 09:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Sunday 14 February 2016, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> [...] Asking lawyers what they think the current
>> wording of our current license says about geocoding may be
>> interesting, but it is much more interesting to know what we actually
>> *want*. And while the issue has been around for years, it seems that
>> few actually have an opinion they consider worth arguing for - it
>> seems that most people actually don't care much.
> Indeed.  I had the same impression with the Collective Database 
> Guideline which is now being discussed by the board apparently.  I 
> voiced some serious concerns if this is in line with the interests of 
> the OSM community[1,2] but got very little reaction.
>
> Of course many people are simply bored by the fact that most license 
> discussions end up as unproductive clashes of opposing interests with 
> participants pushing their respective agendas rather than trying to 
> distill a common standpoint.
>
> [1] 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Collective_Database_Guideline
> [2] 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-November/008306.html
>
>


-------------- 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/20160214/58ea1bf5/attachment-0001.sig>