On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is > defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap > derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in > getting rid of other areas of contention (for example geo-coding). >
The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with third party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data particularly for geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete enough. The ability to use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with (non-license-compatible) third party data is exactly what would would make a gradual adoption of OSM possible. Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the "Geocoding is Produced Work" guideline https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk