On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data >> isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut >> instinct. what do you do? >> > If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing. > > But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds > in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my > scenario.
are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the ground" rule? ;-) it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
