I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs
to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding
anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as
intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a
functional
During the license change from cc-by-sa to ODbL the issue was raised
that 3 weeks for an active contributor to respond to a voting for a
license change was not sufficient and IIRR the response was that this
would be dealt with later. What is the view on this? How can this
detail be changed, and
I found the thread:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CT-time-period-for-reply-to-a-new-license-change-active-contributor-td5270119.html
basically what Michael Collinson wrote makes sense:
- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at
least several months of
Hello Martin and all others,
thanks for opening the CT discussion. I have expressed
significant concerns about it more times already
and I keep uncomfortable with it wording and way it has
been established
On Thursday 25 October 2012 15:31:10 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I found the thread:
I'd hate to see us give up here, there is too much at stake. The open questions
around geocoding are doing OSM a disservice just as CC-BY-SA did. This is from
a commercial community member's perspective just as an individual's, assuming
we all want a better open map. Opening OSM to geocoding
I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There is
some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding services.
There's something to explain, but there's something to explain with OSM anyhow.
OSM is open for geocoding, that can be worked out. I don't see
Hi,
On 25.10.2012 17:30, Mikel Maron wrote:
I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There
is some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding
services.
+1 - I think we're all (including LWG) still waiting for concrete use
case where somebody says:
geocoding patient data, client data, suppliers data, members data
With this kind of sensitive private data, the database would not be
redistributed, hence not invoking share-alike.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Alex Barth
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
+1 for examples. I'm working on pulling some together.
The like for like principle overlooks that data submitted to geocoders can be
sensitive for privacy or IP reasons. Think of geocoding patient data, client
data, suppliers
And this is where SA gets really hairy. It's entirely possible and actually
quite common that part of a database that contains private data is public. E.
g. public facing web sites that are powered from a Salesforce DB through a
private API. Again, we need real-world examples. Working on this.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
And this is where SA gets really hairy. It's entirely possible and actually
quite common that part of a database that contains private data is public. E.
g. public facing web sites that are powered from a Salesforce DB
11 matches
Mail list logo
