And this is where SA gets really hairy. It's entirely possible and actually quite common that part of a database that contains private data is public. E. g. public facing web sites that are powered from a Salesforce DB through a private API. Again, we need real-world examples. Working on this.
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 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
