<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.06.2021 um 17:12 schrieb Yves:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7D97ADB8-A025-4B85-90B9-C86F6B27B1B0@mailbox.org">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
"they do not cover one of the major bones of contention"<br>
Which one if I may?<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Attribution when OSM is not the dominant source of data and/or
potentially just one of many dozen constituent parts of what is
being presented.</p>
<p>In hindsight this is simply an oversight in the ODbL 1.0 which
simply doesn't cater for this case (attribution-wise, in other
areas it does). To resolve the issue we can either use a lenient
interpretation of the licence text, we can revise the current
licence or change it completely. The last three years have shown
that the 1st is not possible because of a very loud group that is
adamant about being very literal, the board refused to even
consider the 2nd, even though it would have the advantage of a
democratic process to determine the outcome, not to mention that
we could have fixed the couple of existing bloopers in the licence
at the same time. The last hasn't really ever been discussed in
depth, but having a geo-data specific license instead of one that
tries to solve the general case could have some advantages.<br>
</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7D97ADB8-A025-4B85-90B9-C86F6B27B1B0@mailbox.org">Regards,
Yves <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 15 juin 2021 16:55:54 GMT+02:00, Simon
Poole <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:simon@poole.ch"><simon@poole.ch></a> a écrit :
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre dir="auto" class="k9mail">
Am 15.06.2021 um 07:05 schrieb steveaOSM:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> ...
OSM has let too many, for far too long, get away with way too much in this regard. It is overdue that we end this abuse of our requirements to properly attribute OSM as the copyright holder of the map data being used.
No exceptions. None. None whatsoever. “No matter what." Is this clear enough? We can’t mess around with this: it is perhaps THE most serious thing OSMF must protect and defend.
...
</blockquote>
I've been stocking up on ropes as of late, I would quote you a volume
discount for say a 100 or so.
Seriously the "new" guidelines are no more enforceable as the previous
texts and as they do not cover one of the major bones of contention, and
do not really change the catch 22 situation some users will find
themselves in.
Assuming that the intent is that we want OSM data to be used in the 1st
place, something I now and then doubt.
Simon
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>