I can understand the desire for a negative example, but: - this is documentation of use that we are happy with, not of the opposite.
- as the preamble says there may be other ODbL compliant ways that to not invoke share-alike to combine datasets outside of those detailed in the guideline. - using a contrived non-trivial negative example has the "it is definitely going to happen" problem that it will be seen as a ruling in use cases which are not on our table and of which we don't know the details. A simple trivial example of common use that is not in line with the guideline would be de-duplication of elements in OSM and a third party dataset to generate a common database. in which each object only exists once. Simon Am 09.06.2016 um 14:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote: >> The LWG has just forwarded the text of >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to >> the OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite guidance from >> the OSMF. > IIRC it was already noted by others that the lack of an example where > share-alike applies kind of makes the whole thing appear unbalanced and > endangers meeting the purpose to clarify 'where the line is drawn'. > > Independent of the actual content adding a non-trivial counter-example > would IMO significantly improve practical usefulness and understanding > of the guideline. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
