sent from a phone
> On 20. Dec 2019, at 00:16, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk > <[email protected]> wrote: > > And that is for extracting the entirety of each feature. The Geocoding > Guideline states: "Furthermore, if only names are provided in Geocoding > Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information from OSM is > not included in the Geocoding Results -- a collection of such results is not > a substantial extract." it should be noted that in the case at hand the intention was to create a new database with translated/adapted OpenStreetMap data. The guideline says: “ Since individual Geocoding Results are insubstantial extracts, they may be stored and used together with other proprietary or third party data without having a share-alike impact on such other data, provided the Geocoding Results have not been aggregated to create a new database that contains the whole or a substantial part of the OSM database. If Geocoding Results are used to create a new database that contains the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the OSM database, this new database would be considered a Derivative Database and would trigger share-alike obligations under section 4.4.b of the ODbL. ” the guideline is about individual results, not about aggregations, for which the share alike provisions persist. From my interpretation this also implies that the attribution requirements persist for individual results, because otherwise it would not be clear that you cannot aggregate them. Do you agree? Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
