[Osmf-talk] ODbL and Geocoding

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 15 February 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> As a consequence the proposed guideline doesn't differentiate either
> and applies the same "all or nothing" principle equally, to both data
> that we subjectively feel is "outside" of OSM, just as to things were
> we could take the position this should really be "in" OSM.

I completely get that and this is a perfectly reasonable approach to the 
problem - and certainly not the worst.  But w.r.t. what Frederik said i 
see no positive indication on the matter itself (in contrast to the 
formal simplicity of the rule) that this is indeed what we want.

> Now the problem with being consistent is being consistent, and there
> may be use cases covered by the guideline were we will all feel
> uneasy, but I believe the proposal strikes a reasonably good balance
> between supporting share-a-like and enabling combination with
> proprietary data within reason.

But is this actually the position of the majority of the OSM community?  
You could of course say there are proponents and opponents of 
share-alike so a weak interpretation of share-alike is likely the 
consensus position but i am not really sure i subscribe to that.

On a basic level what i feel uneasy about here is also making such a 
fundamental distinction between features/geometries and their 
attributes.  From a practical side there is not really that much 
difference between replacing and adding a number of attributes in the 
data on one hand and changing geometries in certain aspects on the 
other hand.  We even have attributes that encode aspects of the 
geometry (3d building mapping, width tags etc.).  Yet the guideline 
clearly allows the former without share-alike and not the latter.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/