On 1 Mar 2009, at 10:19, Andy Allan wrote: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> > wrote: > >> I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I >> perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree? > > Nope, not at all, I'm exceptionally concerned about the implications > on the cyclemap db. I'm combining PD SRTM data and OSM data, and as > far as I'm concerned making both original sources available should be > sufficient. That way every piece of geographic data used in the > cyclemap is available. Being forced to offer a postgis dump would suck > massively. > I think that is a collective DB, see my other post on the subject. There is still the question about whether the process of rearranging the OSM db is a 'derivative DB' or not. Again see my last post for suggestions.
> And never mind for me - I've got the time and energy to deal with it > if needs be. But it'll also suck for people doing things like my > public transport experiments - as soon as you put up a picture of one > of your experiments all of a sudden you'll have some guy demanding a > dump of your postgis db. Seems overkill, and like you say, the > intention should be to make the geographic data available, not the > specific instance of (perhaps processed) data. Can I suggest that when we reach consensus on an issue (this one or any other) that firstly look to the OSM Foundation licencing group to give their official opinion based on their private working group discussion, and then (with or without this input) we agree a response to the consultation by OpenDataCommons. Regards, Peter > > > Cheers, > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
