Am 08.07.2016 um 14:52 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > According to  if someone combines non-horizontal layers together, > the results must be shared under the ODBL. No.
First a general remark: A data consumer that is not complying with the ODbL always has two options to comply with the licence: - stop doing whatever is infringing the licence terms - make the non-OSM data available as required by the licence. > > From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app  is combining > OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels. > > https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the > app. Hotel A appears in the app, > but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels > they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM. > > This is the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447 > > There are other examples of this too like this hotel > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up > next to their supplemented data like this > https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png > > Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license MAPS.ME > either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all > OSM hotels from their app? Not being compatible with any of the guidelines is not the same as not complying with the licence (as I just exhaustively explained wrt the Collective Database guideline). On to the case at hand: It is obviously completely OK from an ODbL pov to create a collective database from two sets of POIs, one from OSM, one from a 3rd party if they have no further dependencies and interaction. Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if you take your proprietary dataset and remove all POIs from the OSM dataset that exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally, ODbL licensed and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with some information leak via the OSM data). If you do the de-duplication the other way around you would be potentially be damaging the proprietary status of your data so you wouldn't try that to start with. You could now distribute the two datasets in a combined fashion and argue that each of them is an individual database and as a result the combined dataset is a Collective Database, both guidelines rule that out (again that does not imply that a judge applying the ODbL to such a case would come to the same conclusion). In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind). Simon
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk