<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I couldn't agree more.<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bigfatfrog67.me">http://bigfatfrog67.me</a></pre>
On 28/04/2014 19:42, Steve Coast wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8B541452-9CEF-410D-9B1D-A3AF5904E49D@asklater.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://stevecoast.com/2014/04/28/attribution-is-it-time-to-name-and-shame/">http://stevecoast.com/2014/04/28/attribution-is-it-time-to-name-and-shame/</a>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--</div>
<div>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://osm.org/">OpenStreetMap</a>
is the global, open and free map dataset that anyone can use.
It is created by a huge community of volunteers who pour their
time and energy in to the project. It’s also fun, beautiful
and cool.</p>
<p>So it’s sad that people don’t want to respect the license. It
asks two very simple things:</p>
<ol>
<li>Please say you’re using OSM. This is <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright">very simple</a>.</li>
<li>If you change the map, please give the changes back. This
is called “share-alike”.</li>
</ol>
<p>Compared to paying a lot of money for incredibly
license-restricted data, you’d think people would be ok with
these requirements.</p>
<p>Sadly, this isn’t the case.</p>
<p>There are those who are now willfully disregarding our tiny
little requirements. It’s being framed as some gigantic and
unreasonable proposition, asking to say where the data came
from or giving data back when you fix things. As if it’s
completely bananas to ask such a thing. As if Linux or
Wikipedia should be disaster ghost towns while asking for
exactly the same thing of their users.</p>
<p>This is just baloney. The real comparison should be; if you
don’t like the license you’re free to use expensive and
complicatedly-license data. That’s your option. Those guys are
just a phone call away, and will be happy to sell you data.
You’d probably find that they have very strong attribution
requirements, just like OSM does.</p>
<p>It is the ultimate disrespect to the volunteers who built the
data to not even attribute their contributions. It’s even
worse that there are some who’re trying to also own OSM for
themselves by taking away the share-alike requirement.</p>
<p>Is the license perfect? I’m afraid not. Specifically we need
more clarification around the technical implementation and use
of geocodes, especially in relation to other datasets. It’s
hard today to technically comply with some of those edge
cases.</p>
<p>But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re speaking here
about the simple ask, that if you use OSM you please say
clearly on the map that it is OSM. You’re getting a great
dataset, for free, under an open license, that millions of
people are contributing to. We’re not asking for $100,000
license fees, we’re just asking that you say who we are.</p>
<p>It’s the ultimate human need; I was here. I did this.</p>
<p>How could you deny people that?</p>
<p>Apparently, easily and willfully. People within the OSM
community have been frustrated and trying to fix it for some
time. If we were a proprietary map supplier we’d revoke a
license or jump to legal options.</p>
<p>We are much nicer than that. I propose a four stage plan,
organized on OSM’s <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk">legal
mailing list</a> and tracked on the wiki:</p>
<ol>
<li>A polite email, linking to our requirements</li>
<li>A week later: Another polite email, warning of what’s to
come.</li>
<li>A week later: Another polite email, same as above</li>
<li>A week later: Very public naming and shaming on OSMs
various social media channels and blogs</li>
</ol>
<p>Most people who miss our requirements are making a simple
error. This is a process that gives three opportunities and an
entire month to correct the mistake. This is not a brand new
idea or process. The FSF and others have named & shamed
(and have even <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/12/11/1745254/fsf-files-suit-against-cisco-for-gpl-violations">went
further</a>) for GPL violations in the past.</p>
<p>In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth
and maturity of the project, that there are those out there
that want to own it or take all the advantages without even
saying where the data came from. But in the end, we have to
defend ourselves for what little, tiny things we ask.</p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>