> geocoding patient data, client data, suppliers data, members data
With this kind of sensitive private data, the database would not be
redistributed, hence not invoking share-alike.
* 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 2:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
>
>+1 for examples. I'm working on pulling some together.
>
>The like for like principle overlooks that data submitted to geocoders can be
>sensitive for privacy or IP reasons. Think of geocoding patient data, client
>data, suppliers data, members data in a scenario where a geocoder is only used
>for a single client. Definitely a scenario where we as MapBox would be able to
>offer an OSM based solution.
>
>On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 25.10.2012 17:30, Mikel Maron wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> +1 - I think we're all (including LWG) still waiting for concrete use case
>> where somebody says: This is how I want to use OSM for geocoding, this is
>> what I believe the ODbL would mean for me, and this is why it is
>> unacceptable for my business.
>>
>> I don't know if it has already been said, but there is a *vast* amount of
>> use cases where we need on-the-fly geocoding - user enters address and is
>> zoomed to location - which are totally unproblematic as no derived database
>> is even created.
>>
>> In many other use cases I can think of, the ODbL's requirement may mean an
>> inconvenience and may mean that users can't be just as secretive as they
>> would like to be, but still sufficiently secretive as not to hurt their
>> business.
>>
>> I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of "giving up"
>> and "too much at stake" sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding which in
>> my opinion it clearly isn't!
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
