On 13 June 2013 14:58, Olov McKie <o...@mckie.se> wrote: > Manual geocoding > A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates > associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or > similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the > process of marking the point or area could be very similar to adding a new > POI or area to OSM using the iD in-browser editor, but instead of uploading > the additions to OSM, the coordinates and metadata are stored somewhere else. > Manual geocoding can also be done completely whitout computer support for > instance by reading coordinates of a printed paper map based on OSM data.
I think you may be mixing up two different things here: * The method of doing the geocoding, which can be either automated or by hand. * The type of input data used, which could be details of the object itself (if the object exists in OSM, or can be interpolated from data that does), or local knowledge of where an object is in relation to other mapped data (e.g. knowing that a certain house is on the corner of two streets). (The second type here would be rather hard to automate, but the first type could be done automatically or by hand.) With either interpretation of manual, the "insubstantial" exclusions in ODbL will allow you do do a few such geocodings and retain all rights anyway. However, if you were to do a lot -- to the point at which is becomes "substantial" I don't see any reason for the share-alike provisions not to apply. You are making use of contributors' works to derive some additional data. The whole point of having a share-alike license is to ensure that such derivatives are shared back with the community. > Geocoding and license implications > Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is > the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person > geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. > All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in > the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the > share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. I think it's quite a stretch to claim that something that is clearly a derived dataset is actually a produced work. The point of the Produced Work provisions is to allow artistic renditions of the data to be licensed differently, as long as the underlying data is still shared. It is not supposed to be used as a get-out clause for avoiding sharing additional data. In any case, I'm not sure that calling the geocoded dataset a produced work will necessarily help. For if it were to be "publicly used" then you would be required to share the derived database behind it and/or the algorithm to create it, including AFAIK any external data you you added (i.e. the data associated with each object that you used in the search). So I don't think this would actually get you out of the obligation to share-alike the search data employed. If you don't "publicly use" the geocoded data, then there would be no-one external getting a copy that would need to be given share-alike rights to it anyway. (Share-alike only applies to those receiving a copy of the data/work.) So it then wouldn't matter if the data what the share-alike rules were. I'd still very much like to hear of potential use cases, where regarding the "inputted search data plus returned coordinates" as a derivative database (which may be part of a collective database with other proprietary data in it) would actually cause problems. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
