https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sui-generis-database-rights-after-the-transition-period
is the UKs governments guidance on this. On re-reading I agree that the
withdrawal agreement itself is rather ambiguous, and there is a lot of
conflicting advice on the matter, see for example
My understanding is that 58.2 covers the rights of UK based entities, with
other words it extends the directives article 11 to cover UK residents and
entities.
Am 14. Dezember 2020 00:11:25 MEZ schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk
:
>Simon,
>
>sorry for reopening.
>
>> This was the subject of the
, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
Am 13.12.2020 um 20:12 schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk:
> Hi all,
>
> Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2020, 15:58:48 CET schrieb Simon Poole:
>> The relevant bit of the directive is in article 11. As you can
Am 13.12.2020 um 20:12 schrieb Tom Hummel via legal-talk:
Hi all,
Am Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2020, 15:58:48 CET schrieb Simon Poole:
The relevant bit of the directive is in article 11. As you can see the
rights are dependent on being domiciled in the EU, not on the physical
location
I
suppose), and the new EU one, and the servers work off them in tandem?
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 23:18, Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
To answer the questions caveat there is no relevant court
decisions that I know of, so this is all likely untested:
insubstantial ch
To answer the questions caveat there is no relevant court decisions that
I know of, so this is all likely untested: insubstantial changes to a
database do not create a new one, but substantial changes do. Where the
line is drawn, or better where the OSMF draws the line, is currently
open. See
Legal talk is not the LWG list if that isn't clear, that is
le...@osmfoundation.org
Simon
Am 10.12.2020 um 22:11 schrieb Edward Bainton:
A pleasure meeting you all at LWG this evening.
I saw Brexit in the minutes for September
"At the end of year we won't be losing database rights
Everything relevant has been documented here
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility for a long
time.
Am 6. November 2020 17:47:16 MEZ schrieb "Pierre Béland via legal-talk"
:
> 2020-10-06 , Mateusz Konieczny wrote via legal-talk :
>> For example Wikidata is CC0 but
Just as a note, prior to the review of CC BY 4.0 compatibility by the
LWG (and CC fwiw), we were very clear that 4.0 licensed material should
-not- be imported, the importers knew this and were ignoring it at their
own risk.
Simon
Am 23.10.2020 um 10:43 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via
This is not a particular unique situation, a sovereign country can,
naturally, create exclusive rights or specific regulation for more or
less whatever it cares.
Copyright is simply the most popular, with wide spread understanding and
international treaties as support, set of exclusive
Am 16.06.2020 um 13:51 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 13:32 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <mailto:si...@poole.ch>>:
>
> (not discussing if the material added is even protected
> to start with).
>
>
>
> As you are mentioning it, are
Am 16.06.2020 um 13:13 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>
> Provided that ODbL and OpenStreetMap would be sufficiently linked, is
> it then possible to copy OSM data into wikidata, which is distributed
> as CC0?
>
>
As been pointed out many, many, many times (and it is not going to
You are unnecessarily making your life hard. There is a big red warning
at the top of the "Use Cases" page, simply take it seriously (the
content of that page was written in 2012 a rather long time ago and
before any of the guidelines existed). The current relevant guidelines
are available from
I would suggest that you give a heads up on talk-gb in any case so that
other UK contributors know what's going on.
Simon
Am 18.01.2020 um 01:56 schrieb Cj Malone:
> Thanks Kathleen,
>
> I'll add attribution to the wiki tomorrow.
>
> My current intention isn't to automatically import, but rather
Am 16.12.2019 um 17:22 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
> it's a derivated, therefore share alike. I'm glad they trusted OSM data.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
Yes the distances are a Produced Work which, if publicly used, implies
that if a Derivative Database was used to produce the
Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly
accessible mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions
however unfounded they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you
got a cacophony of conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you
should have expected.
Yes, if a Derivative Database was created in the first place, and that
is not clear at all, see:
/“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and//
//includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any//
//other alteration of the Database or of a
have been required for them
> to do their job.
>
> Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim
> ownership of such edits, I think it would be difficult for
> that same employer to also claim the Contributor Agreement
> d
The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be approached
on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and certain aspects
of intellectual property law differ widely by territory.
So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and which law
is
This is simply a licence for the individual constituent parts of a
database when that database is licensed on ODbL terms, in particular as
in the case of OSM these are geographic facts. It is not a licence that
has any bearing outside of such use.
To understand it, it is probably simpler to
Am 07.10.2019 um 01:23 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber:
> I thought, whenever you re-digitize OSM data from a printed map, it would get
> ODbL again. According to current ruling by European Court of Justice, a
> printed map is just a database (it has been judged for a German topographical
> map in
Are you really doing this (applies to your 2nd question too) or are you
dealing in hypotheticals? As this would seem to be a rather roundabout
way to get shapefiles from OSM data it just seems to be rather unlikely.
In any case you are creating a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 licensed
work which
While the policy is undoutably good, it does not follow that all data
published actually conforms to it (for example third party rights in
existing data could be an issue).
In any case on data.houstontx.gov the licence is specified for 7
datasets, so I assume the intent is to do that for all over
See
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Licences_that_require_downstream_attribution
Not news btw, the licence has been the subject of many discussion.
The other thing is that they have a nonsense header on that page
"Webcontent-Anzeige" which make it rather unclear
Hi Deborah
That sounds like an useful and interesting project.
I would however like to note that the warning at the top of the "use
case" page is to be taken literally.
Neither are the use cases vetted against what has been typically
actually been asked (contrary to the thought up use cases)
IANAL
It seems as if whatever they tried to patent in Germany was actually
definitely rejected.
Notes:
- this does not imply that they failed elsewhere, YWHTPM to find that out.
- while patents can apply to the processing and use of OSM data and
potentially (by a long stretch of imagination)
The split is simply historic, there is a low priority plan to merge both
lists, but it is one of the things that keeps on getting pushed back.
Simon
Am 08.01.2018 um 11:00 schrieb Javier Sánchez Portero:
> Hello
>
> I have a doubt about the existence of two levels of attribution in OSM:
>
> The
That is IMHO, not a particularly good template, and is a classical
example of a page that should have been deleted instead of leaving it
around to confuse. The examples on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission are a bit
better (the page is badly named that is why it is not
Hi Mike
You need to get your lawyer to look at
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence in particular
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
I'm afraid nobody can offer case by case vetting of specific business
cases, at best we can point you to general guidance, and
Well IMHO none of this is relevant, as we do not claim any rights in
individual elements in our database.
As a result every single operation for itself is completely OK. The
issues start when you (and I include any method of work splitting in
that) do any of them systematically in a way that is
One of the larger items the LWG has been working on this year is an
attempt to provide more clarity on how our licence works with respect
to geocoding. As some of you know this is a fairly controversial topic
and a number of different approaches have been suggested and discussed
in the past.
We
Am 30.05.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
>
> This is what they've said:
>
> "I have discussed this with our legal section and we are not in a
> position to waive the conditions of CC BY, as it goes against the ACT
> Government Open Data Policy that supports free and open data.
>
> My
Andrew, pls jog my memory, is the ACT data available on CC BY 4.0 terms
or are the terms based on a earlier version?
The problem with point 2 is that, if taken seriously, the relevant terms
impose rather far reaching restrictions on how derived works can be
used, for example a map generated from
ing algorithms
>
> If you don't feel comfortable about the terms, the Open Government
> Data License also allow the data to be licensed under Creative Commons
> Attribution License 4.0 International in clause 4.2.
>
> [1] http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=B001
&
00, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> OK thanks Simon for the clarification!
>> I'll ask the participants of
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/odtwn/permalink/1927450013936074/?comment_id=1927539973927078
>> and
>> https://discuss.okfn.org/t/license-approval-request-open-govern
As has already been pointed out 3.2 could be problematic. The
translation is a bit wobbly and unclear, but if I understand it
correctly the intent is to reference a data set specific attribution
requirement that would naturally have to be looked at for any specific
data use.
The really killer is
s to the same cc-* licenses as the two version
> specific references.
>
> Cheers
> Blake
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
>> Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org
Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this.
Simon
Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
> The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no n
See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
Am 06.02.2017 um 22:32 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>
>
> On 06.02.2017 09:55, Erno Mäkinen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> For example, for the CC-BY 3.0 Unported license the ODbL
>> Compatibility in the OSM wik
On 06.02.2017 09:55, Erno Mäkinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For example, for the CC-BY 3.0 Unported license the ODbL Compatibility
> in the OSM wiki states that it "is ODbL compatible if rights holder(s)
> explicitly states in writing that credit on the Contributors
>
Marcus
I'm not quite sure if there is a real issue. If you derive the
boundaries you use from OSM, yes it is unlikely that it is
non-substantial if you are using them for a whole country and the result
is likely subject to share alike.
However that only requires you to make the your modified
The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
to you.
Simon
Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
Simon
Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
>> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
>>
Am 21.01.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> ...
> Is it enough to get a permission to distribute it under ODbL? Wouldn't
> it also be needed to have a permission for DbCL? The DbCL states that
> the stored components don't have a foreign copyright. So contracts, which
> tell us "you can
I've pointed this our before. but anyway: we don't really care that much
about the imagery licence as such as long as we are allowed to display
it in the usual OSM tools. The real question are the rights in digitized
vector data from that imagery.
The best situation IMHO is if the provider of the
The LWG is working on a statement wrt CC-BY 4.0 compatibility and is in
direct contact with Creative Commons.
I suspect that we will have something in latest a couple of weeks,
including a template waiver/statement that we will need for such sources.
Simon
Am 09.01.2017 um 03:07 schrieb cleary:
data friendly" I suspect it is not a big issue.
Simon
Am 05.01.2017 um 15:46 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> As far as I can tell the license is in principle suitable, they even
> warrant that the data is free of rights of third parties, BUT, alas,
> the attribution requirement in (4
The LWG is in the process of discussing its concerns with CC and hopes
to be able to clarify things soon. Some of the concerns are 4.0
specific, some would in principle apply to the previous versions too.
Simon
Am 07.12.2016 um 20:21 schrieb Rory McCann:
> Hi all,
>
> The wiki page on ODbL
IMHO it is unlikely that randomly generated (during the game) data would
be considered a database to start with, if you are not using OSM data
for such features in any case, then there is even less reason for
concern. Further as long as you remain within the boundaries of the
trivial
Am 09.09.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
>
> There was a case in the UK where (IIRC) house price data was offered
> under the UK Open Government Licence (OGL). It turned out later that
> the addresses in it had been checked/normalised using a proprietary
> address database,
plicit in all licenses - if there is third party material in a
> work that the open licensor isn't authorized to license, then that
> material isn't licensed to you, regardless of what the license says.
>
> Luis
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:56 PM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch
> <mailto:si...
The additional terms are "a bit of" a problem, however might be
surmountable if they are willing to give us a statement specifically for
the inclusion in OSM (along the lines of that they agree that the
inclusion of the data in OpenStreetMap and distribution on terms of an
open and free licence
Essentially it doesn't have any effect wrt your old contributions since
they are not suddenly "un-redacted", so no need to panic.
It would still be a good idea to reset the flag, BUT, legal-talk is
definitely not the right place to get that done. Please simply contact
the system admins.
Simon
Hi Joost
This is nearly a FAQ see for example this thread
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-July/008159.html
If necessary I can draft a text for the case of deriving data by tracing
from imagery or similar sources.
Simon
Am 12.08.2016 um 14:57 schrieb joost schouppe:
First a general comment: I would in general refer to the "Collective
Database" guideline as it is essentially an extension of the ideas first
formulated there and a bit more rigorous in its treatment of the subject
matter.
When we created the "Horizontal Layer" guideline, while not explicitly
>
> There are no substantial differences between the CC BY 3.0 and the CC BY
> 4.0 licences. A summary of the differences can be found here:
> https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/.
>
> CC BY 4.0 (like CC BY 3.0) does not prevent OpenStreetMap from
Am 08.07.2016 um 14:52 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
> the results must be shared under the ODBL.
No.
First a general remark:
A data consumer that is not complying with the ODbL always has two
options to comply with the licence:
Unluckily this simply confirms that the data cannot be included in OSM.
As I pointed out before, this is simply an indirect subsidy of the
producers of proprietary data and closed systems.
Simon
Am 08.07.2016 um 03:15 schrieb cleary:
> The issue of using the Australian PSMA Administrative
Am 29.06.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am Mi, 29.06.2016, 22:58 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> just that this list becomes very long, see
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
> You wouldn't see "data.gov.au" in a German map extract of course.
> I just wasn't creative
The explicit permission that we received was for data released directly
by the Australian government, it is unclear if that could apply to data
that they have licensed from a third party for distribution which seems
to be the case here.
CC by 4.0 reduced the requirements on attribution compared
g OSM data
in a way that is incompatible with the licence you simply either have to
rectify that (which could for example be by not using the data publicly)
or stop using OSM data.
Simon Poole
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-ta
Am 10.06.2016 um 16:25 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> A question to "the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other":
>
> Let's say, I've added municipal road identification numbers to the OSM
> database (not in my extract, but the "real" database).
>
> I later want to join other
Am 09.06.2016 um 17:40 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>> I can understand the desire for a negative example, but:
>>
>> - this is documentation of use that we are happy with, not of the
>> opposite.
> But we are happy wit
Am 09.06.2016 um 17:36 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> Am 09.06.2016 um 17:06 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
>> Also (and it may be deliberate) this guideline doesn't address the
>> question of what filtering / querying you can do with your collective
>> datab
Am 09.06.2016 um 17:06 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
>
> Also (and it may be deliberate) this guideline doesn't address the
> question of what filtering / querying you can do with your collective
> database. For instance, under the guideline I can take OSM restaurant
> data, and add
ould be de-duplication of elements in OSM and a third party
dataset to generate a common database. in which each object only exists
once.
Simon
Am 09.06.2016 um 14:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>> The LWG has just forwarded
FYI
The LWG has just forwarded the text of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to the
OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite guidance from the OSMF.
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ist I haven't found anything online yet.
>
> Dale
>
> On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch
> <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
>
> Diane
>
> Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised
> wrt CC by 4.0 and
Diane
Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised wrt CC
by 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way it works for
databases?
Simon
Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters:
> Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's
> licenses, Erik
Am 13.03.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:49 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> I wrote the opposite.
> Is my English that bad? Perhaps you can read German, perhaps anyone
> else can. That's what my brain has translated from your writing:
>
> "Es beha
Am 13.03.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:06 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>> It does (care about a change to the OSM layer). It addresses exactly the
>> case that you could use your 3rd party data to generate an OSM extract
>> that doesn't conta
Am 13.03.2016 um 14:36 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:06 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> I specifically limited my point to the case in which there was no
>> changes to the OSM layer due to the 3rd party layer and vice versa.
> Yeah, I've understood this point,
um 13:57 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:50 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
>>> but of course it interacts with the features.
>> How?
> That's exactly written in here:
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wik
Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> but of course it interacts with the features.
How?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
IMHO if you don't undertake any efforts to suppress duplicate objects
(which would include purely visual operations too) you already have
completely separate datasets and are already clearly in, potentially
ugly though, Collective Database territory.
Simon
Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias
Am 13.03.2016 um 12:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> I totally understand your expaination and I often used the same words
> to describe ODbL. But the OSMF should release a notification to clearly
> state the difference between other produced works (like artwork based
> on OpenStreetMap) and
Am 04.02.2016 um 04:07 schrieb Michael Ledford:
> ...
>> Worst case, if the data you upload contains copyrighted material and we
>> cannot easily enough identify which of your data is tainted and which is
>> ok, then *all* data you uploaded might have to be removed again.
> And this is why I am
Am 29.01.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Simon Poole:
> The OpenStreetMap is exactly that (a wiki), anybody can write
> essentially anything on it
wiki
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
The OpenStreetMap is exactly that (a wiki), anybody can write
essentially anything on it, and as such the page you are referring to
is neither vetted by the OSMF (the licensor of the OSM data) nor are
they in any other way official or maintained.
See
* http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a
completely new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and
potentially is not "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of
getting permission to attribute on the website. Further it could be
argued that in reality such
I would have to strongly agree with Robert. Matter of fact my position
is that we have in the past been too lenient in this respect and should
be much more strict going forward matching the growth of OSM and its
usage globally.
Unluckily the situation that IP law tends to be very territorial and
Am 28.12.2015 um 14:46 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> that we other attribution in the contributor terms and on the other
>
That naturally should have been "that we offer attribution in the
contributor terms ..."
signature.asc
Description: OpenPG
Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC
> BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in
> Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways
There might be a misunderstanding
Am 23.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> I consume OSM data, adapt it for my needs by adjusting OSM geometries
> to match CC-BY licensed aerial imagery, and then publish the result
> publicly.
>
>
Are you -actually- doing this or would like to it or is this a thought
experiment?
? there are 4 responses to your mail, at least one with a question that
you haven't answered .
Am 19.11.2015 um 08:51 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber:
> Three days are gone and still no discussion about this topic.
> I think, nobody is really interested in discovering license violations and
>
For those that do not read weeklyOSM/Wochennotiz (you really should)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62014CJ0490=de=TXT=
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
the sign up process without creating a cascade of
further problems.
Simon
PS: given that this is slowly getting very off topic , I would suggest
carrying on the discussion on the legal-talk list.
Am 18.11.2015 um 02:26 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>
> Am 18.11.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Kate Chapman:
&g
Lars, is there any indication that the site uses for the map anything
else than existing OSM data?
Note that we do not require trivial transformations of OSM data to be
published as long as the original data is available (for very obvious
reasons). See
You may have seen an early version of this either on legal-talk or via
WeeklyOSM/WochenNotiz. It's gone through a number of revisions since
then and has incorporated input from a number of sources. Thanks to
everybody that took the time to work on it. Content wise this version is
slightly less
Am 12.10.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Mr. Stace D Maples:
> ..
> Neither of the projects was scrapped because we /couldn’t/ use OSM for
> the project, but because we couldn’t determine IF WE COULD use OSM for
> our particular uses.
>
> ...
And you or your legal department approached the licensor of
Could we please get back on topic?
Neither the pros and cons of share-alike, nor use cases in which the
data is not publicly used, nor alternative licensing schemes, nor
mumbo-jumbo from conference sessions is the subject of this discussion.
Please feel free to discuss any of the above in
For those readers that are not well versed with wikis, I just wanted to
point out that some points have been raised on the discussion page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_Metadata_Guideline
I personally would prefer if feedback was given here, but obviously
using the
our data is not subject to
> sharealike as
> > ~~defined in the “Horizontal Layers” guideline. Note this is a
> > ~~hypothetical use case and not an actual one.~~
>
> I recommend striking the paragraph above: This statement doesn't
> clearly flow
> from the ODbL
Tom, any feedback yet?
Simon
Am 14.07.2015 um 16:22 schrieb Tom Lee:
> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've
> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either
> with formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the
> next license
I think you are clearly illustrating why we are wary of opening the can
of worms bending the definitions of the ODbL creates.
So now we not only have to take the leap of faith that geo-coding
creates a produced work*, we have to expand the definition of
substantive to allow essentially complete
is accidental.
Simon
Am 24.09.2015 um 00:32 schrieb Alex Barth:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch
> <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:
>
> it might actually force
> such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding fo
My understanding of the trivial transformation guideline is that the
data in the nominatim instance would fall under it (so you are not
obliged to supply somebody that asks with a dump of your nominatim
database or your osm2pgsql rendering database etc etc, you can simply
point to the original
Am 23.09.2015 um 15:32 schrieb Tom Lee:
>
> why wouldn't you want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that
> you tried to geo-code (successfully and non-successfully)
>
>
> To use an extreme but hopefully illustrative example, consider the
> queries used to create the thematic map on
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:16 schrieb Tom Lee:
> I'm not sure what basis there is for thinking a service provider will
> necessarily reuse clients' data. Maybe!
Not "maybe" but dead certain, see for example geocoder.ca and I hope you
don't really believe that google doesn't reuse the data you submit to
Am 23.09.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Alex Barth:
> ..
>
> The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still
> leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind
> in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with
> third party data. This is
1 - 100 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
