Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

2015-09-23 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
On 9/23/15, Tom Lee wrote: >> >> I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this >> easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly >> query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a >> million lat-lon pairs to store in your own databas

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Rob Myers
I don't understand this objection. If a company accidentally publishes something that's a problem with their procedures, not any license (free or proprietary). On 23 September 2015 15:32:06 GMT-07:00, Alex Barth wrote: >On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > >> it might actually

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Alex Barth
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > it might actually force > such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding for public > vs in-house use. > This suggestion has come up before and I'd like to flag that this is impractical. No organization would and should take the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license test

2015-09-23 Thread Tom Lee
This strikes me as a fair and useful framework. I'll take a crack at it, with geocodes-as-produced-works in mind: SPIRIT: Surely it's possible to avoid creating a sharealike backdoor by clarifying that geocodes become substantial only when combined to reverse engineer the map. HARM: The evidence

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Tom Lee
Thanks, Steve, for pushing this in a productive direction; and apologies to you, Simon for letting my frustration through. I should emphasize: I don't think that I'm suggesting a license change at all, and I don't mean to suggest that sharealike is broadly impractical. I'm suggesting that a guidan

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Michal Palenik
I am in complete agreement with Simon. to stress on the topic of geocoding political party donors (example), if you don't plan to publish their individual addresses, you must not geocode their individual specific addresses, but rather a city level address only. michal On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Steve Coast
Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/ +14087310937 > On Sep 23, 2015, at 11:22 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Now obviously it does limit in some aspects the T&Cs an OSM based > geo-coding service can use for its business and it might actually force > such a service provider t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Steve Coast
> On Sep 23, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > > I confess that I'm not sure what to say to this. You're asserting that > running a geocoding business with ODbL attaching to the results is no big > deal, that "all the use cases you can think of" seem fine. Mapbox is > _actually running_ a g

[OSM-legal-talk] license test

2015-09-23 Thread Steve Coast
A constructive way forward may be to set out some tests that should be met for any license change for any issue. Maybe this exists already and I missed it. I’d suggest three tests below, but maybe someone here has better ones. I’m not sure *who* should judge this. Maybe a vote of some kind. SPI

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Simon Poole
Am 23.09.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Tom Lee: > I confess that I'm not sure what to say to this. You're asserting that > running a geocoding business with ODbL attaching to the results is no > big deal, that "all the use cases you can think of" seem fine. Mapbox > is _actually running_ a geocoding busi

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Tom Lee
I confess that I'm not sure what to say to this. You're asserting that running a geocoding business with ODbL attaching to the results is no big deal, that "all the use cases you can think of" seem fine. Mapbox is _actually running_ a geocoding business and telling you that we would like to use OSM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Simon Poole
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:16 schrieb Tom Lee: > I'm not sure what basis there is for thinking a service provider will > necessarily reuse clients' data. Maybe! Not "maybe" but dead certain, see for example geocoder.ca and I hope you don't really believe that google doesn't reuse the data you submit to

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

2015-09-23 Thread Randy Meech
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:01 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/23/2015 04:49 AM, Randy Meech wrote: > > I used the MapQuest Nominatim > > service to geocode and/or reverse geocode all the global tide stations > > used in the app. What would the community have me do? > > As a step one, and b

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Tom Lee
I'm not sure what basis there is for thinking a service provider will necessarily reuse clients' data. Maybe! That's not my experience, but I can imagine how it might be useful. I hope you'll agree that data security and stewardship is a trickier thing to implement within an open project made up of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

2015-09-23 Thread Simon Poole
Am 23.09.2015 um 15:32 schrieb Tom Lee: > > why wouldn't you want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that > you tried to geo-code (successfully and non-successfully) > > > To use an extreme but hopefully illustrative example, consider the > queries used to create the thematic map on

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

2015-09-23 Thread Tom Lee
> > why wouldn't you want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you > tried to geo-code (successfully and non-successfully) To use an extreme but hopefully illustrative example, consider the queries used to create the thematic map on this page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

2015-09-23 Thread Tom Lee
> > I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this > easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly > query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a > million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the > world could

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

2015-09-23 Thread Simon Poole
Am 23.09.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Alex Barth: > .. > > The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still > leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind > in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with > third party data. This is