Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
sent from a phone > On 28. Oct 2020, at 16:19, Kathleen Lu wrote: > > Actually quality scores would be not be subject to sharealike, per the > Collective Database Guideline. Why does the collective database guideline apply? Aren‘t they coloring OpenStreetMap derived data? To me this looks like a derivative database. Cheers Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Given that the attribution is exactly as requested on the website, I would
imagine any issues with below 993 layout pixels is an oversight or a bug. A
friendly email would suffice, but it certainly does not merit a letter from
OSMF. You are free to send the email yourself.
OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there
exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only
cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be
subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
> polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
> database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
>
>
> in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
> and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
> screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
> most tablets):
>
> https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css
>
> @media (max-width: 992px) {
> .leaflet-control-attribution {
> display: none;
> }
> }
>
> This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
> mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
> Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
> of copyright or the ODbL.
>
> The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
> me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
> about the residential quality of the land?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
sent from a phone
> On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> wrote:
>
> Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the polygons
> match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative database,
> then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
most tablets):
https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css
@media (max-width: 992px) {
.leaflet-control-attribution {
display: none;
}
}
This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
of copyright or the ODbL.
The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
about the residential quality of the land?
Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
