? there are 4 responses to your mail, at least one with a question that
you haven't answered .
Am 19.11.2015 um 08:51 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber:
> Three days are gone and still no discussion about this topic.
> I think, nobody is really interested in discovering license violations and
>
Hi,
On 11/19/2015 04:04 PM, Lars-Daniel Weber wrote:
> The guidelines say that you need even to release the steps to create
> a derived database (or share the diff or share the database itself).
Yes, but the Trivial Transformations guideline[1] explains:
"We therefore define a term "trivial
Frederik Ramm wrote on Donnerstag, 19. November 2015 um 13:46 Uhr:
>
> I would have a stronger opinion if it were a case where external data is
> mixed with OSM to create an "added value" product - but if someone just
> mangles the OSM data a bit, I'm tempted to view that as part of the
>
Reading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96pnvkarte
and the talk page, I would assume that what you are interested in is
the rendering styles. The data seems to be from OSM. I am not sure
that you would have a legal standing to request them. Only if he used
AGPL licensed styles would you be
Three days are gone and still no discussion about this topic.
I think, nobody is really interested in discovering license violations and
penalize the violators.
Why do we have ODbL at all, if all we do is to discuss about the license itself
or tell guys to write the correct attributation?
ODbL
Lars, is there any indication that the site uses for the map anything
else than existing OSM data?
Note that we do not require trivial transformations of OSM data to be
published as long as the original data is available (for very obvious
reasons). See
Dear Simon!
Simon Poole wrote on Montag, 16. November 2015 um 12:40 Uhr:
> Lars, is there any indication that the site uses for the map anything
> else than existing OSM data?
It's heavily post-processed OpenStreetMap data, f.e. buffers, results of
spatial analysis etc.
There is no external
