I'd hate to see us give up here, there is too much at stake. The open questions around geocoding are doing OSM a disservice just as CC-BY-SA did. This is from a commercial community member's perspective just as an individual's, assuming we all want a better open map. Opening OSM to geocoding would be one of the main drivers for getting better boundary data and better addresses. Depending on your read of the license, right now OSM's terms on geocoding are potentially stricter than Google's or Navteq's.
I'd love to work with whoever is interested on wording a clarification statement and figuring out the process on how to decide on it. On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > 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 Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
