On 8 July 2016 at 23:47, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address > a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if > you take your proprietary dataset and remove all POIs from the OSM > dataset that exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally, > ODbL licensed and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with > some information leak via the OSM data). If you do the de-duplication > the other way around you would be potentially be damaging the > proprietary status of your data so you wouldn't try that to start with. > > You could now distribute the two datasets in a combined fashion and > argue that each of them is an individual database and as a result the > combined dataset is a Collective Database, both guidelines rule that out > (again that does not imply that a judge applying the ODbL to such a case > would come to the same conclusion). > > In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to prohibiting > de-duplication (of any kind).
On 9 July 2016 at 00:10, Ilya Zverev <i...@zverev.info> wrote: > Thanks for raising the issue. We at maps.me tried to follow the license: > basically we are combining the OSM data without certain nodes (see the list > of ids at http://direct.mapswithme.com/direct/latest/skipped_nodes.lst ) and > a proprietary data set for hotels. Since we do not use any OSM information, > like names or coordinates, for these hotels, I assumed the result could be > considered a collective database. > > Now, the matching process does indeed compare coordinates of hotels in both > datasets, and filters out nodes in the OSM data. The list of nodes is > published, so anyone can reproduce the open part of the data from a planet > dump. Again, the proprietary data is in no way affected by the OSM data (it > is added in its entirety, not a single object is omitted or altered using OSM > data). So the last item in the guidelines ("all hotels not found in the > OpenStreetMap data layers") does not apply. > > If the LWG decides we are violating the license (and explains how, maybe > producing another guidelines), we will remove all OSM hotels from our data. > But for now I don't see how it's different from removing just some of the > hotels. Thanks for the explanation from both of you, so in this specific case it appears from what you've both said is that maps.me has taken a "proprietary dataset and removed all POIs from the OSM dataset that exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally, ODbL licensed and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with some information leak via the OSM data)." I don't follow if this is permitted or not, either it is because "each of them is an individual database and as a result the combined dataset is a Collective Database" but then you say " both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind)." Sorry I don't follow which one it is, that the de-duplication that maps.me is doing is permitted under the license or isn't. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
