<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 20:54 schrieb Yves:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DA4E35A0-A39C-41DA-A75B-5C03A6832875@mailbox.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Advertise better OSM => get better data => finally get a
pure OSM map content. From our point of view it's a virtuous
circle, isn't it? <br>
</blockquote>
<p>In theory yes, in practical terms you need to</p>
<p>- get the user/data consumer started with OSM, which implies
perhaps a small geographical or thematic extract</p>
<p>- be realistic and arrange yourself with the fact that there are
regions where OSM sucks (at least right now)<br>
</p>
<p>- cater for all the the things OSM doesn't do (not saying never,
just currently things are limited), DEMs, aerial imagery, traffic
data, and lots of things I can't think of near midnight.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DA4E35A0-A39C-41DA-A75B-5C03A6832875@mailbox.org">If
other providers have less imperative attribution guidelines than
us, then there is no reason to care about equal treatment. <br>
</blockquote>
The problem is that the narrative is not about equal treatment, it's
about "just OSM". <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DA4E35A0-A39C-41DA-A75B-5C03A6832875@mailbox.org">If
concessions have to be made, maybe we could explicitly tolerate a
short 'OSM' for multi-source maps when the required attributions
is longer than ours alone.</blockquote>
<p>There are lots of ways this could be made to work, matter of fact
I'm fairly sure a CC BY 2.0esquish "Such credit may be implemented
in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a
Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will
appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in
a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship
credit." would make lots of OSM contributors quite happy (this
would be the equal treatment you are referring to), but it is by
far not the only avenue that could be taken.<br>
</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DA4E35A0-A39C-41DA-A75B-5C03A6832875@mailbox.org"> <br>
Yves <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 15 juin 2021 19:59:27 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;">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"><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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>