-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25/07/14 04:38 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote: > > I agree that geocoded private data must be allowed to stay > private.
The ODbL goes to great lengths to explain that it only covers publicly released data. > At a minimum, we need to find a way to say actively reverse > engineering the database can trigger share alike, but the ability > to reverse engineer it does not. OK. But we also need to find a way of saying that if that ability leads to that result then there isn't a defence of being surprised. > A lot of the responses here just say to not cross the Substantial > threshold. That feels like a total cop out - an argument saying OSM > and its users should remain small and insubstantial... which > doesn't seem to align with our goals. That's something of a conceptual slippage. OSM and its users should become large and substantial (as it were...). Non-free exploitation of the resulting data should not. > The fact that we’re scaring away well-intentioned users is sad. Well-intentioned users don't want to circumvent the license in order to recreate substantial sections of it for non-free use. By definition. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT00kHAAoJECciMUAZd2dZRncH/1R2YvZg8/N+6mCBtEW6HJvw znnCYeYgaK88fRVAvqpZ7bdXQBb9yN0Tbx/Xewoop6dZEp4XSMO4EezciM4kS341 e3mm6XuUiJy+3zYL+qBxjSE/zPmMI/fINM0wR3Tc3w3yT/cU61stSd6ux2bwFNJJ Aa7C0kgkXfV2ItSbBBH6GN0PWkMC4+1fkVe4fEnbgWrT6tF3KlSF4+cKmIALuMc3 ACEyVJUgKCiy4UXXXPF6oRn031gF5GgkXIMnLChLE5HL4DlCWTlLCNPvLIz2N9T6 WKKIp+4hsEs1J5a7Rv5Akl6aE7QVHeA1+YzCYB/dAXe13o0hBa+HY3tPzNaTMzA= =Nqb5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
