sent from a phone
> On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:48, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> wrote:
>
> In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns and not
> removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one property that is
> "OSM ZIP" and one property that is
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:16 AM Lars-Daniel Weber
wrote:
> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk"
> > In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns
> > and not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one
> > property that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is
From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk"
> In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns
> and not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one
> property that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP",
> and they are two different properties that are
> Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of
> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>
> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
> topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
> appear
From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk"
> So if what is extracted is solely what was in the database, then the
> extraction is not
> material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually
> change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be
> impermissible under ODbL).
In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns and
not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one property
that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP", and they are
two different properties that are not used to improve each other, so it is
a
In my mind, the tile license (CC-BY-SA) sits on top of the database
license, as the license to a produced work by the OSMF. So if what is
extracted is solely what was in the database, then the extraction is not
material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually
change the
From: "Simon Poole"
> I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both
> licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without
> conflict).
I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM. But
it's damn difficult for me to find out
Am 07.10.2019 um 01:23 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber:
> I thought, whenever you re-digitize OSM data from a printed map, it would get
> ODbL again. According to current ruling by European Court of Justice, a
> printed map is just a database (it has been judged for a German topographical
> map in
