On 9 June 2016 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann <chris_horm...@gmx.de> wrote: > On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> The LWG has just forwarded the text of >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to >> the OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite guidance from >> the OSMF. > > IIRC it was already noted by others that the lack of an example where > share-alike applies kind of makes the whole thing appear unbalanced and > endangers meeting the purpose to clarify 'where the line is drawn'. > > Independent of the actual content adding a non-trivial counter-example > would IMO significantly improve practical usefulness and understanding > of the guideline.
+1 Also (and it may be deliberate) this guideline doesn't address the question of what filtering / querying you can do with your collective database. For instance, under the guideline I can take OSM restaurant data, and add third-party ratings data to each entry, and it will be a collective database. But what if I then do a query that returns the locations of restaurants that have >4* ratings in a certain area and just show those to users? Is this filtered dataset -- including the ratings used to create it -- subject to share-alike, or is it still a collective database of OSM restaurant names and locations, together with independent ratings? I wonder if we'd be better having a guideline that's based on rule that any data used in a query with OSM data has to be shared. Data that's only used in simple table joins does not. (As in the existing guideline, it would be a question of whether you can achieve the same results using such a method. Technical implementations that do things differently for efficiency reasons don't count against you.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk