Am 23.09.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Tom Lee: > I confess that I'm not sure what to say to this. You're asserting that > running a geocoding business with ODbL attaching to the results is no > big deal, that "all the use cases you can think of" seem fine. Mapbox > is _actually running_ a geocoding business and telling you that we > would like to use OSM in it but can't sell a geocoding service that > has ODbL attached to the results.
No, I'm saying that for a overwhelming majority of use cases in which the geo-coding are used publicly the ODbL does not cause the privacy problems you were alluring too. Nor does it cause any problem for in house use at all. Now obviously it does limit in some aspects the T&Cs an OSM based geo-coding service can use for its business and it might actually force such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding for public vs in-house use. But then it isn't as if you are completely free to do what you want with a lot of other data sources either. > > And no one has yet offered any examples by which ODbL attaching to > geocoding results has led to contributions that improved OSM. Or > contributions at all (the prospect of Randy's tide station data > notwithstanding). Getting back failed addresses for QA would be a start. But the more important point is that we are not at liberty to simply declare by fiat that bulk geo-coding does not create a derivative database. The underlying problem is that geo-coding is not a clearly defined process, it is at best a loose concept. I doubt that anybody would have issue classifiying geo-coding addresses in the US to states (your initial example) as a produced work, on the other hand extracting building entrances with attached addresses is clearly a one-to-one copying out of OSM, both however are "geo-coding". Most actual use cases are going to be somewhere in between and the last couple of years of discussion on this topic have clearly shown that we will not make any progress except if we base a geo-coding guideline on principles that are as far as possible independent of the actual mechanics. > > I realize you'll disagree, but I'm left with the same sense of what's > achievable and desirable for a geocoding guidance. Enable more > geocoding. Protect OSM's assets. Abandon the impractical goal of > compelling users to share their results. > I don't think there is an election going on any time soon, so please tone down the rhetoric. It's simply the case that we have the licence we have and at least for the immediate future we have to live with it and give our data consumers guidance in the current frame work, not in a make believe better world. Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
