I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There is
some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding services.
There's something to explain, but there's something to explain with OSM anyhow.
OSM is open for geocoding, that can be worked out. I don't see the other side
of the argument here yet, why sharing back only geocoded strings is a problem.
I disagree that reverse-geocoding infects an entire database. That needs some
clarification.
Google's geocoding terms are not even defined, and it's likely legally than
anything significantly geocoded using GMaps is property of Google.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>________________________________
> From: Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com>
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
>
>
>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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
