On Wednesday 23 September 2020, GITNE wrote: > [...] However, I am unsure > whether this your opinion or legal assessment? Because a legal > assessment is actually what I would like to know.
You will only ever get opinions here (often colored by interests and what people want to be true) and never a binding legal assessment you can rely on. What you wrote so far has not been very convincing. That changeset data is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an argument against it being covered by the contributor terms. Frequent discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the mapper community regards them as such. In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL: https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/changesets/ and there are a lot of third party services that use this data in their services (like various QA tools, for example achavi) so if you have an issue with that in principle picking out Slack specifically is not really appropriate. (that is all under the assumption that Slack is using the data in compliance with the ODbL - which i don't know) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
