Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 24/lug/2014 um 23:03 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. 
 The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what 
 forms a derivative database as part of a collective database.
 
 Not following how I can make a Derivative Database from a Produced Work. Once 
 it's a Produced Work it's a Produced Work, right?


I also see it like this, it would be a database of works (like a database of 
renderings) and not under ODbL, therefore I think the premise that a geocoding 
result is a produced work might already be flawed, because it seems natural 
that a database of results is a derivative database.

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Randy Meech]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
 Forward and reverse geocoding existing records is such a huge potential use
 case for OSM, helping us drive contributions. At the same time it's _the_
 use case of OSM where we collide heads on with the realities and messiness
 of data licensing: Do we really want to make a legal review the hurdle of
 entry for using OSM for geocoding? Or limit using OSM for geocoding in areas
 where no one's ever going to sue? How can we get on the same page on how
 we want geocoding to work and then trace back on how we can fit this into
 the ODbL? Geocoding should just be possible and frictionless with OSM, no?
 Shouldn't there be a way to open up OSM to geocoding while maintaining share
 alike on the whole database?

These are the key questions  I support open geocoding with share
alike applied to the whole database. How can we get clarity on this
either way? Because not clarifying this is effectively saying no
which I believe loses high-quality contributions.

Clarifying with a no or not clarifying at all will direct a lot of
effort elsewhere -- this is a shame.

In a previous role I directed a lot of resources specifically toward
OSM. With this continued lack of clarity, today I would direct them
elsewhere. That's also a shame.

 (and yes, when I'm saying geocoding I'm referring to permanent geocoding
 here, where the geocoding result winds up being stored in someone else's db)

To not support this is essentially saying that OSM is not to be used
for geocoding in the majority of desired cases. But it comes down to
what people want for the project, and where address-level effort will
go.

-Randy

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk