On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
wrote:
Only when you start to use the process to systematically recreate a
database from the process the ODbL kicks in.
This is also how I'm reading
On 2014-07-14 8:15 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
This is also how I'm reading this. Obviously the sticky point is the
definition of what's a database in this sentence: systematically
recreate a database from the process. You
Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of
Substantial doesn't matter.
Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations around
dropping share alike my impression was that there was a consensus around
unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike advocates.
Just
On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of
Substantial doesn't matter.
A database that is based upon the Database, and includes any
translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other
alteration of the Database or
2014-07-14 20:26 GMT+02:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA implications for
the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM, ODbL does the same with
permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for geocoding we can't have its
ODbL infecting the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/07/14 06:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations
around dropping share alike my impression was that there was a
consensus around unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike
advocates.
Just
