----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <rich...@systemed.net>
To: <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community
Guidelines for temporary file
Jonathan Harley wrote:
Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
doesn't reduce the amount of information.
The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have
and
they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't
(e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back.
IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :)
cheers
Richard
That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion
where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to the
community.
However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either
by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form
of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with
ODbL clause 4.6.
Regards
David
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
