On 06/03/2012 15:34, Ed Avis wrote:
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could 
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?

UMP only collect "road routes". With the caveat that I probably still do not understand *exactly* the intended use, (if anyone knowledgeable wants to jump in, please do), I think the issue breaks into two parts.

The first issue is to augment their Garmin map. So, yes, it is very likely they could use our data as an independent Produced Work layer.

The second issue is that they are very reasonably asking reciprocity - if OSM can continue to use UMP road data, so UMP should be able to use OSM road data. And that is the difficult one. I was hoping to work with defining what "use" actually meant. It is possible that UMP would never actually want to copy in an OSM road or any details about it into the UMP project database. They just want to be able to compare the road networks, see if there is anything missing or potentially anomalous and go out and independently map it. Frederik puts it well:

"Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) "

However, if I were in UMP, I would want to be cautious and seek clarification from OSMF. Which is what I am seeking to give. Doing it specifically for another free and open project with known goals seems safe, doing it for anyone- as Ed, Frederick and Richard are reasonably suggesting - seems dangerous without very carefully defining what "verifying" could mean, and more importantly, what it does not mean. If we do not find a resolution, it will be a great shame for both projects.

Stumped,
Mike


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Reply via email to