Hi,
On 10/23/12 01:24, Alex Barth wrote:
Say we clarified that geocoding a dataset with an OSM powered
geocoder (e. g. Nominatim) does not extend the ODbL license to such a
dataset. This clarification would not apply to the dataset that
actually powered the geo coder. So if I went and gathered improvement
suggestions of my users ("move the marker to the right position on
the map") and I added them into that OSM dataset that powers the
geocoder, this OSM dataset would still constitute a derivative DB.
That much is clear + agreed, but there will likely be a good business
case for gathering improvement suggestions from your users and *not*
adding them to the OSM dataset that powers the geocoder.
As I tried to say with the geocoder.ca example, even without actively
involving the user - just recording what they typed - you can collect
valuable information and improve your own geocoding database without
necessarily adding the results to OSM; your collecting that information,
however, can only start once you have a geocoder that basically works,
i.e. OSM. So, for your particular use, the OSM geocoding capability is
clearly essential - you could not start from nothing.
It is *possible* that something is essential and insubstantial at the
same time, but it does sound a bit strange.
Another question that we could ask to enlighten us is: What do
commercial geocoding providers usually allow you to do once you have
paid them? When you geocode a dataset with TomTom data and you pay them
for that, do TomTom then still claim any rights about your resulting
database, or do they say, like you sketched above, that "their license
does not extend to the geocoded dataset"?
I think that nobody in OSM actually expects users to share their
customer or patient record just because it has been geocoded with OSM.
But there is likely an expectation that any data someone might have that
can help to *improve* geocoding should be shared back.
During the license change discussion, my position was often this:
Instead of trying to codify everything in watertight legalese, let's
just make the data PD and write a human-readable "moral contract" that
lists things we *expect* users to do, but don't *enforce*. - Maybe the
same can be done with geocoding; we could agree on making no legal
request for opening up any geodata, but at the same time make it very
clear that we would consider it shameful for someone to exploit this in
order to build any kind of "improved geocoding" without sharing back.
(In today's world, a press release that goes "The OSMF foundation
regrets to see company X violating OSM's moral code by doing Y" can be
more powerful than legal threats anyway.)
In my mind there's much to be gained by giving
better incentives to contribute to OSM by clarifying the geocoding
situation and little to be lost by allowing narrow extracts of OSM.
The whole share-alike thing is about striking a balance between exposure
(surely a public domain release would give us maximum exposure) and
incentive to contribute back (the more open your license, the less you
force people to contribute back).
Addresses seem to be a valuable part of OSM data. Could an extract of
potentially millions of addresses really be "narrow"?
I
believe we can do this within the letter of the ODbL and within the
spirit of why the ODbL was adopted.
I think that to preserve the spirit we would have to find a way of
saying "you can use our data to geocode your patient database and we
don't want any of your patient data in return" while at the same time
saying "if you devise anything to improve this geocoding on your side,
or have additional data that can help improving the geocoding, then that
falls under ODbL". I don't know if this can be done within the wriggle
room that ODbL affords us but it is worth a try.
BTW, I don't want to know how many people out there have used
Nominatim for geocoding without having any idea...
Any JSON or XML result from Nominatim contains the explicit "Data (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL 1.0" and even the URL of the copyright
page. I'm sure people are using that without having any idea - but
that's the same everywhere. I have personally spoken to lots of people
who casually said things like "then we ran that through Google's
geocoding..."; OSM has even been offered, on several occasions,
"donated" POI data where it later turned out that they had not surveyed
the POI locations but just ran their addresses by a commercial geocoder
and disregarded the license restrictions.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
