Jani Patokallio wrote: > Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker > of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team > and possibly even contribute back to OSM!
On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with each other, Collective if you haven't. On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William Hill vs BHB*)... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licensing-of-works-containing-geocodes-pinpointed-on-OSM-data-tp5730883p5730991.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
