Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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 behandelt genau den Fall, dass

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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 behandelt genau den Fall, dass du deine Fremddaten zur Generierung eines OSM-Ausschnitt

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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 contain your data, generating a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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 contain your data, generating a complement to your data > allowing you to improve your

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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, but the guideline

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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, but the guideline doesn't care about a change to the OSM layer! The layer

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Ahem, this is going around in circles. 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. In other words: there is no interaction between the layers other than they are visually superimposed. Simon Am 13.03.2016

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline "For

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:27 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > yes, you won't have to release your data if you remove similar data from > OSM before rendering though. So this means: layers with data under a properity license including features, which already appear partially on a the official

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:23 schrieb Simon Poole: > > 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

sent from a phone > Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias Wendorff > : > > This would mean: If I show parking facilities for bikes as an GPX or > GeoJSON overlay as a layer an top of the OpenStreetMap base tiles, > which might already included existing

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

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