<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 20, 2021, 23:32 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 16.06.2021 um 10:43 schrieb Mateusz
Konieczny via osmf-talk:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jun 15, 2021, 19:59 by <a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><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><div>It isn't "misinterpreting" it, it is interpreting it in the light of
an oversight in the text (just as fading away attribution or splash
screens does not literally fit the text in the licence).<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">(1) why splash
screens does not literally fit the text in the licence? <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Unless I am missing something ODbL requires effect - hiring someone to stand next to produced<br></div><div dir="auto">work all time and explain data source would also fulfill attribution requirements.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"Example notice" is quite explicitly only an example, I see nothing that would disallow less usual<br></div><div dir="auto">attribution methods.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(2) are you claiming that waiving explicitly required attribution for some uses can be done<br></div><div dir="auto">just because someone considers it as an oversight?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Without changing actual license text?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Despite that there are not such exemptions at all in <br></div><div dir="auto">"4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative
Database, or the Database<br></div><div dir="auto">as part of a Collective Database, then You
must: (...)"<br></div><div dir="auto">section<br></div><div dir="auto"> <br></div><div dir="auto">I am not a lawyer but that is quite surprising to me. I am well aware that abusive clauses<br></div><div dir="auto">can be struck from contracts and made void, but it seems to be a different case.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><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></blockquote><div>See above.<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">How can <br></div><div dir="auto">"You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated<br></div><div dir="auto">to make any Person that..."<br></div><div dir="auto">be intepretation as allowing "attribution" that will not be seen by a typical user?<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><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?<br></div></blockquote><div>Somewhere deep in the wiki I had a list at one time.<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Please link it if you will ever find it!<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto">I am also curious which specific maps/projects
were <br></div><div dir="auto">affected by this composite data problem.<br></div></blockquote><div>Apple would be the poster boy example, but there are lots.<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Is it possible to view Apple maps without owning iPhone or other<br></div><div dir="auto">Apple device?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>