[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[David Earl]

On 04/03/2009 17:16, Mike Collinson wrote:
> Jason,
> 
> Good questions
[snip]
> :: Your kids in the park did not make a derived database nor did they 
> use the OSM database.  They put a separate unrelated layer on top on top 
> of a "Produced Work", i.e a printed map.  They have no obligations.  The 
> map should already credit us.

They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from 
some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem 
with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data 
in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that would 
be derived, surely.

Even if they made a list of co-ordinates on paper, or on a tracing paper 
overlay, it's a Derived database by my reading. The license doesn't 
specify the data has to be stored in a computer, merely that it has to 
be systematically organised (geographical location is surely systematic 
organisation), and "accessible by electronic or other means" - it's 
obviously intended primarily for electronic media, but the "otherwise" 
surely captures this case.

Taking this a step further, a bus company already has the locations of 
its bus stops and displays them on OSM. That's not derived (not from OSM 
anyway, though someone else's lawyer may have something to say about 
it). But if they use OSM to _obtain_ the coordinate data from a textual 
description they already hold ("opposite junction of Smith Street"), 
then that is derived. The definition of Derived Database seems quite 
clear on that and they have to make the database available.

> :: The wildlife group can use the OSM database to plot out paths, 
> forests. They can make their own database of protected species 
> locations. They can make a "Produced Work", a printed map or a web 
> mash-up combining the two. No obligation other than attribution.  
> Alternatively, they should strongly consider being an OSM contributor 
> ... all the tools are there for them at no cost.  They can add all their 
> species data using custom tags and also add any new or changed paths or 
> landuse in the same environment.  Win-win.

I think the point was, they wouldn't want the data to be public under 
any circumstances, in OSM or anywhere else, because it makes the species 
vulnerable. They're using the map as a tool to make an internal database.

But if they can't publish the data then it's entirely within their 
organisation, and there are no restrictions on that at all.

David