On Jul 11, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com> wrote:
What I'm looking for a is a clear interpretation by the community, supported OSMF, an interpretation that is a permissive reading of theODbL on geocoding to unlock use cases.
Guidelines need to be accurate and supported by the ODbL and shouldn't be advanced to support a particular viewpoint and the process is not a way to weaken share-alike. I'm working my way through the examples.
Consider a chain retailer's database of store locations with store names and addresses (street, house number, ZIP, state/province, country). The addresses are used to search corresponding latitude / longitude coordinates in OpenStreetMap. The coordinates are stored next to the store locations in the store database (forward Geocoding). OpenStreetMap.org's Nominatim based geocoder is used. The store locations are being exposed to the public on a store locator map using Bing maps. The geocoded store locations database remains fully proprietary to the chain retailer. The map carries a notice "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.
In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what forms a derivative database as part of a collective database. This derivative database is then used to create a produced work (the locator map). 4.4.c provides that this database of geocoding results is publicly used and is licensed under the ODbL. 4.6 requires offering the recipients of the produced work the derivative database itself or alterations file. In the specific case of this example, the alterations is trivial - you just say you were using unaltered OpenStreetMap data processed with Nominatim.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
