<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Mar 1, 2019, 1:05 PM by mikel.maron@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">As enthusiastic as I am to see osm “in the wild”, I’m irritated by license shaming. I know, it’s irritating by design. I don’t believe it works and just casts a bad light of OSM.</span><br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I agree, and probably most mappers agree. That is probably reason why there is little to no reaction<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">to widespread missing attribution.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I think to solve this problem OSMF should act.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Just notifying Mapbox and other companies responsible for violations that they have right to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">file DMCA would be a good start. Hopefully it will not be blocked by conflict of interest.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I really agree that shaming would not be strong enough to be a good use of time.<br></div> </body>
</html>