Hi, On 25.10.2012 17:30, Mikel Maron wrote:
I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There is some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding services.
+1 - I think we're all (including LWG) still waiting for concrete use case where somebody says: This is how I want to use OSM for geocoding, this is what I believe the ODbL would mean for me, and this is why it is unacceptable for my business.
I don't know if it has already been said, but there is a *vast* amount of use cases where we need on-the-fly geocoding - user enters address and is zoomed to location - which are totally unproblematic as no derived database is even created.
In many other use cases I can think of, the ODbL's requirement may mean an inconvenience and may mean that users can't be just as secretive as they would like to be, but still sufficiently secretive as not to hurt their business.
I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of "giving up" and "too much at stake" sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding which in my opinion it clearly isn't!
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
