Am 01.03.2019 um 12:51 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular > with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this > conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this > resulting in gross inconsistencies. And in a way it is understandable > if coporate data users use this as a basis to try to take this a step > further. > ...
I would actually dispute the characterisation, there are two key motivations behind the guidance we've given: - practical considerations: for example taken verbatim the ODbL could be read as requiring everybody that runs a minutely updated tile rendering to the public as having to provide a copy of the database on a minutely base to anybody that has seen their tiles and asks for it. This is obviously silly and we've provided guidance saying that you don't actually have to do that. - clarifications due to the subject matter (aka geodata) and the application of the ODbL to it: these mainly concern what is a produced work and what isn't, what is a substantial extract and what isn't, and the interactions with third party data (limitations of share alike on third party data). There are no guidelines that impact or weaken the application of the ODbL wrt attribution of OSM, nor are is there any weakening of how the ODbL applies to actual OSM data or derivatives. Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
