<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Arial">well as written at the time
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F</a></font></p>
<p>Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”. You can
read more about what these terms mean here: <a rel="nofollow"
class="external free"
href="http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License">http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License</a></p>
<p>So it's quite clear when we switched licensed, what the OSMF
wants and what we expect from Corporate members. If they want to
hide behind dubious interpretations of the license, i'm starting
to agree with those that have suggested that we do not need to
have members acting this way.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Às 22:59 de 08/11/2019, Kathleen Lu
escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnBk8gvqGV48iAh1rMOkugOoYxtSVKJnnBYpgineXtWT8Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">But your comparison was to two sources licensed
under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (which have the same attribution
provision), where the attribution was not adjacent to the
material that came from those sources, so that is what my
question was about. <br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:54 PM
Nuno Caldeira <<a
href="mailto:nunocapelocaldeira@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">nunocapelocaldeira@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Arial">I prefer attribution visibly as
mentioned here by OSMF
<a
href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#How_should_I_attribute_you.3F"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#How_should_I_attribute_you.3F</a>
clear, visible and in the corner of the map. not behing
"i" that 1% will click on...if they manage to it
hit...which isa bit hard on mobile devices TBH.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>Às 22:43 de 08/11/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Nuno, do you honestly prefer attribution
further down the page than behind an (i) on the map? I
think that the (i) on the map is much more likely to
inform a user about the *map*.<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at
2:33 PM Nuno Caldeira <<a
href="mailto:nunocapelocaldeira@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">nunocapelocaldeira@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Arial">Another interesting thing is
that facebook doesn't have a issue for visibly
attributing Wikipedia and Freebase. Scroll down
at this example page at <a
href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Madeira-Natural-Park/113857212034096?rf=152605491445324"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.facebook.com/pages/Madeira-Natural-Park/113857212034096?rf=152605491445324</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">or <a
href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Peneda-Ger%C3%AAs-National-Park/104009266303334?rf=112523248763549"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.facebook.com/pages/Peneda-Ger%C3%AAs-National-Park/104009266303334?rf=112523248763549</a><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Printscreen of the visible
attribution. <a
href="https://i.ibb.co/8Y5V2dp/aaaa.jpg"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://i.ibb.co/8Y5V2dp/aaaa.jpg</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">So the issue is either our
license or them and mapbox not knowing about
attribution (which i highly doubt since they are
corporate members of OSMF and been repetitively
been asked to comply). We will probably never
know, since they never reply publicly neither
does the board.<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>Às 07:18 de 10/10/2019, Rihards escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>We all are overjoyed when OSM data is used more and more.
And we all are happy when big players like Facebook use OSM data.
Sometimes in a rush they might miss properly attributing OSM, and
getting to somebody who can fix it is hard (it's a big company after all).
Perhaps OSMF members can ask the board for a favour - sending a short,
polite letter to Facebook, asking to give mappers a fuzzy feeling and
add a proper attribution?
Discussing multiple steps (a direct letter first, then a public letter,
then one directed to their copyright contacts etc) is likely out of
scope for this thread.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>