On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:49 AM, <legal-talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > From: Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> > On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of > OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) > or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, > we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with > each other, Collective if you haven't.
Thank you for the response. For the feed, basically we'd be looking at a list of points of interest in this format: <poi> PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA <location> <lat>OSM</lat> <long>OSM</long> </location> </poi> Would this be "adapted" or not? If yes, what if we store the geocodes in a separate file and cross-reference the two, like this? Closed: <poi> PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA <location>1</location> </poi> ODBL: <geocodes> <location id=1> <lat>OSM</lat> <long>OSM</long> </location> </geocodes> > On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we > should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding > (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say > that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less > substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a > connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I > may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William > Hill vs BHB*)... Yes, this would be very interesting for us as well. Cheers, -jani _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk