First of all: sorry, my mail client had problems while parsing the mail. That's what the message-id got lost. I hope that won't happen again :(
> The relevant question here is if during this process you generate a > derivative database containing both OSM and proprietary data. If you > do you'd need to share this database. I'll contact the programmer of the generalization tool, but since input files are seperate shapefiles, there isn't a mixture of data from me as a data provider. I can't tell you, if the tool will create a mixed database ... the resulting files will be stored in ONE file, like a PDF or AI file or anything else. So that's bad ... or even worse. > From my perspective this is not relevant - first because usefulness is a > subjective assessment and second because the ODbL share-alike > provisions are not about usefulness, they are about giving something > back in case the ODbL data is useful for you in connection with other > data. Sure, I understand that. But I thought the main concept behind share-alike is to make data better by foreign "investitions". > But in your specific use case i see no real problem. If you move the > OSM street data to match your other information you can easily make > available the modified street data. If you do it the other way round > modifying other data using OSM data things are more tricky. But you > can try to avoid that. I think, it's vice-versa. Since some elements will also move (push, pull, snap), f.e. landuse polygons, they will interact with OSM data. So, according to ODbL, everything which is interacting with OSM data needs to be released nevertheless it's in the same database or now. That's something, the employer didn't take into account and it might break the use he had in idea. We are about using OpenStreetMap data on an area of about 5000 square kilometer. Best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
