Christoph Hormann wrote:
From my perspective it is as Simon put it:
In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to
prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind).
Now you can of course disagree with that assessment but so far you have
not brought up any convincing argument for that. Just because your
exact use case is not mentioned in the Horizontal Layers guideline does
not mean it does not apply in analogy. It does not matter if you use
proprietary data to add features missing in OSM data or if you use OSM
data to add features missing in proprietary data - the license as i
read it is symmetric in that matter.
From my perspective, Simon mentioned the guidelines, argued that they
refer to the case in maps.me, while they state the reverse case (with
removing duplicates from OSM), and then finishing with the summary you
quote. I agree that one of the examples in the Collective Database
Guidelines does not specify a method of de-deduplication, though, for
example, prioir text allows for databases to be considered separate when
"the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other". And they don't.
As I see it, we have two independent databases. Complying with ODbL
4.6.b we provide "A file containing all of the alterations made to the
Database".
Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, and
on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to hide
the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 km. Does
in that moment when a user clickes the options, the combined map become
derivative? Because the application removes parts of OSM map based on
proprietary data, which means, by your implications, that that creates
an inseparable references.
Now, let's use in this example not the whole OSM dataset, but only
hotels from it. And the proprietary data is also hotels. What changes?
IZ
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
