Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text
On 21 May 2014 15:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I like the message but I am not sure if it really works, license-wise. Suppose I have my own data set with restaurant POIs, A. Now I take an OSM database with restaurant POIs, B. Now I compute the difference, B-A - all restaurants that are in OSM but not in my own data set. This database, B-A, is clearly derived and needs to be shared. However it does not contain anything that is not already in OSM so sharing it would be of little use to anyone. Now I build a restaurant finder web site that polls both databases, the A and the B-A database. And you say: Because of this I now need to share A. But I don't see how this can ever be possible. At what point has A, which has not been modified the slightest in the whole process, been tainted with ODbL? The only thing that has any descendance from OSM is the B-A database. One possible argument (and I'm not sure whether it's correct or not) would be that while initially A and B are independent elements of a collective database, in order to run the query that works out B-A, then A and B (or at least the information required to run the query) are no longer independent. Therefore you've implicitly created a derivative database of (at least parts of) A and B, in order to run the query. If that's the case then either the (parts of) A+B derivative database must be shared under ODbL, or the parts of A used in the query and the details of the query must be made available. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text
Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes which tighten and clarify without changing intent. I have made one large edit by replacing my original horizontal cuts text with some that I believe is better [1]. We (LWG) want to make it very clear that if a map is made with different layers, folks can't just arrange the layers artificially to weasel out of data share-alike obligations. I think the new text says that very clearly and in a manner better matching the concepts of derivative and collective database data sources. However, it does come from a suggestion by a commercial company, so for transparency I declare that and invite any comments. If there are no controversies by the end of the week, we'll begin the next step [2] which is for the Foundation to endorse the text as being a reasonable community consensus and transfer it to the osmfoundation.org. As a check-and-balance, that endorsement will be done by the board not by the License Working Group. Mike [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes which tighten and clarify without changing intent. I have made one large edit by replacing my original horizontal cuts text with some that I believe is better [1]. [ ... ] I find the new text to be clear and believe that it will serve well as a community guideline. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
