On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
> If you apply this to your above example, the addresses would be subject > to SA (however no further information), and while potentially one could > infer that these are likely the addresses of the store locations, no > further information would needed to be disclosed*. > So I think I follow: in a database of store locations [1], where coordinates have been added through OSM-based geocoding, only the coordinates (latitude/longitude pairs) from OpenStreetMap are subject to share alike. The store names, street names, house numbers, etc. wouldn't be subject to share alike, they didn't come through the OSM-based geocoder - nor any coordinates that haven't been added through the OSM-based geocoder. While this reading is better than the uncertainty we have now it is not practical beyond well informed users. To appropriately handle geocoding under this practice, a geocoder application would not only have to expose on a granular level where data was sourced from [2] - but a geocoder user would have to store this information in a granular way to be able to release data appropriately. [1] Chain Retailer example (number 1): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline [2] Assuming a complex geocoder with a fallback to appropriate third party data.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
