Since OSM is used in commercial products, all exceptions you mention for non-commercial use is not applicable.
The debate of many persons copying 1 fact from another database has been discussed in the past, but OSM always tries to err on the safe side. IMHO It would be more damaging to the project to have to remove data when a company or organisation start filing copyright claims (as there is no money to pay lawyers). On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:04 AM "Christian Müller" via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Shameless plug: > > > At least in Germany copyright does have limits, so an individual > may use/recite/remix parts of a copyrighted work or database, in > particular for non-commercial and scientific use - just as it is > popular to cite and quote parts of scientific publications in > others. See in particular Unterabschnitt 4 "Gesetzlich erlaubte > Nutzungen für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Institutionen" of > UrhG [1] (link in German only, sorry). > > I don't know to what extent this is applicable for an international > project such as OSM, but there are fair-use and non-commercial ex- > ceptions in the copyright statutes of many countries, that generally > may apply to what has been practised and afterwards ban'ed here. > > So while a systematic copy of an ODBl non-compatible work or database > for sure breaks OSM rules, researching for individual names or generic > geographic facts (that are also verifiable on-ground e.g.) does not. > > Merely reusing names of watercourses is not a breach of copyright, if > you research them in non-database publications _or_ if you do copy > few excerpts (UrhG speaks of 15% for scientific, non-commercial use) > out of a foreign database dedicated to listing watercourse names and > their history (and that is non-ODBl compatible). > > > However, not supplying a source or explanation for others to validate > the changes made in a changeset, is hindering others to find and fix > mistakes later on. So even if the above may grant some use of other- > wise incompatible data sources -to a specific an often fuzzy extent-, > it surely does not grant using foreign sources without attribution. > > > I'm not a lawyer, so you have to validate the claims made yourself > if you do want to use foreign sources based on those claims (!). > > In any case it may be easier to use PD sources, like Frederik suggested, > but license-incompatible sources are /not/ sacredly forbidden by default > if you adhere to some principles outlined in UrhG and consider the legal > type and status of the organisational aspect of OSM. > > > Greetings > cmuelle8 > > [1] > https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJNR012730965BJNG004800123 > > > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Juni 2019 um 12:19 Uhr > > Von: "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org> > > An: tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm > > > > You cannot continue to use one inadmissible source and then when you're > > told this is wrong, use a different inadmissible source and so on ad > > infinitum. This is not a contest of who finds a loophole. > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
