I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a functional licence that is appropriate for the subject matter and we shouldn't be unhappy with the fact that our licence now works (even though I like many others, would have preferred a more liberal licence).
We don't have any exact information on the position of the community, but I would suspect that we have substantial support for strong share a like provisions and that getting a 2/3 majority for relaxed terms would be big challenge (I would like to remind everybody that we lost a number of quite large mappers during the licence change process due to the ODbL being a sell out to commercial interests and not SA enough). The only way out that I could see to avoid "infection" of propriety information is, along the lines of the suggestion by the LWG, to only geocode address information and use the address information as a key to look up such propriety information on the fly, the address DB itself being subject to ODbL terms. This however wouldn't help in the reverse geocoding use case (example: user clicks on a map to locate a bar and we return an address, the dataset of such addresses and any associated information would probably always be "tainted"). Simon _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
