On 10/27/2014 4:47 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion here [1]. Also
copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for better addressing in
OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree with [2].
Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] - thanks
particularly to Frederik for this work. However, we have two competing
visions for how to interpret geocoding. Column 1 of the wiki page
interprets the information queried from OpenStreetMap in a typical
geocoding request as Produced Work, thus not extending share alike
provisions to geocoded data. Column 2 interprets the content pulled
from OpenStreetMap in a geocoding process as a Derivative Database but
the database this content is inserted to as a Collective Database.
I'm wondering if we should replace "geocodes" with "geocoding results"
throughout the page. I think it improves clarity as to what is being
discussed, and geocodes is not a term in common use for what we are
discussing. Thoughts? It shouldn't change the meaning.
Given the lack of mention of a *database* of geocodes, as it stands I
don't think column 1 helps with any standard use cases, where you will
have many geocodes in a database. What do you think the status of a
database of geocoding results is under the interpretation in column 1?
Those who I've talked to believe that in principle column 2 supports
their use cases - it is just a matter of bringing clarity to it.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
