Thanks, Steve, for pushing this in a productive direction; and apologies to you, Simon for letting my frustration through.
I should emphasize: I don't think that I'm suggesting a license change at all, and I don't mean to suggest that sharealike is broadly impractical. I'm suggesting that a guidance be issued that clarifies how geocoding relates to the license. And I'm suggesting that treating geocoding results as a produced work would not pose risk to OSM; would not cost it data; would offer advantages to some users; and would create new incentives for improving the map. Steve is right to point out that other businesses have decided to take the risk that ODbL's implications for geocoding results will never be enforced. Or they're just using the data without worrying about compliance at all. I think it's unfortunate to dismiss this issue solely because there aren't more actors willing to work on a clear and ethical path forward. > however it’s also hard to see who would pay for OSM geocoding in the first place when there’s almost no data compared to proprietary maps This speaks to Alex's point about the need to enable iterative uses of the data, where open data supplements proprietary sources (here's an example: https://www.mapbox.com/blog/austrian-open-address-data/ ). The name you chose for this problem is apt. OSM has become a wonderfully powerful tool for the use cases it's friendly toward, like rendering tiles and routing. OSM is relatively inflexible toward geocoding, and consequently it is not a great tool for it. Yet. At any rate, I can assure you that we have customers today with use cases that could be served exclusively by OSM data--reverse place-level permanent geocoding is top of the list. And there are many more who could benefit from OSM data supplementing the quality of our results. On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/ +14087310937 > > On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:22 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > 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. > > > Another good point: If the OSM license has some edge case problem, it’s > still far better than proprietary licenses which are the alternative. > > I’m calling it "edge case” if the SNIFF TEST in my prior email is not met, > maybe it’s just as well to call it the “EDGE CASE TEST”, which is similar > if not identical to the MANY TEST. > > Just trying to pull the discussion toward black & white tests which we can > actually pass or fail, happy to see other suggestions. > > Best > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
