<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jun 15, 2021, 19:59 by simon@poole.ch:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p><br></p><div class="">Am 15.06.2021 um 17:12 schrieb Yves:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>"they do not cover one of the major bones of contention"<br></div><div> Which one if I may?<br></div></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.<br></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).<br></p></blockquote><div dir="auto">In such case it may be worth addressing, but deliberate misinterpreting of license seems<br></div><div dir="auto">to be a poor way to achieve this.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto"> 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<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">As far as I see license is quite clear - attribution reaching a typical user is mandatory.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Not hidden somehow in way that would make more space for logo of a hosting company<br></div><div dir="auto">or more ads.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Or placed in setting in a blob of "attributions" of all other used open data and open source<br></div><div dir="auto">libraries, in way clearly indicating that it is not intended to be read by anyone.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto">, 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></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Are this bloobers listed somewhere? I am also curious which specific maps/projects were <br></div><div dir="auto">affected by this composite data problem.<br></div> </body>
</html>