Hi all - A few thoughts on the comments. Speaking entirely on my own behalf here, I have not gotten feedback on this yet from the rest of the LWG.
[from Christoph] But if you aggregate such results they can become subject to the ODbL. . . > The difference is that indirect results are significantly *less > substantial* than direct results because by interpolating you lose a lot of > substance. Spelling this out makes sense to me but the formulation cited > above seems to be misleading and confusing. [from Martin] Rather than "contain no osm data" this could be seen as "contain only > transformations of osm data, no raw osm data". I think I see the confusion here now. What if we tweaked this language to something like the following? *CURRENT DRAFT: Individual Geocoding Results are insubstantial database extracts if they are based on a Direct Hit. Individual Geocoding Results that are based on an Indirect Hit contain no OSM data and so are free of any obligations under the ODbL.* *PROPOSED REVISION: Individual Geocoding Results are insubstantial database extracts: Individual Geocoding Results that are based on a Direct Hit contain an insubstantial amount of raw OSM data; Individual Geocoding Results that are based on an Indirect Hit contain no raw OSM data at all and only transformations of or inferences from OSM data.* [from Martin] E.g. my algorithm could take a list of all streets, query all house numbers > from 1 to x (until it doesn't find any more hits for a sequence of > numbers), but not the numbers 3 and 4 . . . The hypothetical sounds like a systematic attempt to extract "substantially all" addresses. It also does sound to me like the intent would likely be to create a general purpose geodatabase from OSM (for example use of the results again as a geocoder). So share-alike would apply: “A collection of Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the original aggregation was accomplished.” Without attributing to osm The attribution piece of this is indeed somewhat tricky. We wrote a fairly detailed explanation of our reasoning in the FAQ section of the wiki. To be clear: anyone running a geocoder based on OSM would need to attribute OSM. Yes, individual geocoding results are not substantial, but geocoding is > typically executed many times (i.e. systematically), and it is the sum of > the geocoding results that makes the extract substantial. Yes agreed - a collection of Geocoding Results can have enough data to be a Substantial Extract of an OSM Database and a Derivative Database. This applies to both Direct and Indirect Hits. Hopefully the proposed new wording above would help clarify this. Thanks again for the feedback. -Michael >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
