<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Às 14:56 de 09/08/2019, Christoph
Hormann escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:201908091556.37106.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
</pre>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how
to work with OSM data to comply with the license. No data user has to
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to
comply with the license. The Guidelines should never suggest something
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule)
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by
the license. And saying "if you attribute in this way that is
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Guidelines by the licensor<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">On legal advice, <b>what a Licensor says
carries weight with users of our data and, potentially, to a
judge</b>. A court would make a final decision on the issue,
however we hope these guidelines are helpful to <b>avoid </b>disputes
arising in the first place and can be considered by the courts
in coming to their verdict. </blockquote>
</p>
<p> from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines</a></p>
<p>what companies are doing, is exactly the opposite, they justify
their actions based on the license interpretation to their own
interests, not taking into account what the licensor says.</p>
<p>The license is clear:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">4.3 Notice for using output (Contents).
Creating and Using a Produced<br>
Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you<br>
Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must<b> include a notice</b>
associated with<br>
the <b>Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person</b>
that uses,<br>
<b>views</b>, accesses, interacts with, <b>or is otherwise
exposed to the Produced</b><b><br>
</b><b>
Work aware that Content was obtained from </b>the Database,
Derivative<br>
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and
that it<br>
is available under this License.</blockquote>
Unless someone can explain me how i'm i suppose to see the notice
when i'm view or am exposed to their produced work if they are not
showing it visibly and clearly without me having to interact to
either click an "i" icon or go through endless submenus to figure
out what's the map source. the word "interacts" is there for a
reason...<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:201908091556.37106.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM
compared to other attributions given this is less the case. In the
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the
simplest answer.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>quoting ODbL: <br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">4.8 Licensing of others. You may not
sublicense the Database.</blockquote>
They must keep the notice intact, therefore attributing OSM.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>When we switched from CC to ODbL, this was documented as:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Both licenses are “By Attribution” and
“Share Alike”.</blockquote>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F</a></p>
<p>Ditching the attribution for second rate attribution is not only
unfair, does not meet this and also goes against <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#OBJECTS">OSMF
objects of the foundation articles</a>. Unless someone explains
me how we are promoting the growdth, development and distribution
of free geospatial data to those that are not aware of it by
hiding the source of the wonderful maps those companies do with
the data from this lovely community.<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">you show users and viewers of whatever you
do with our data clearly where you got the data from. A lot of
contributors have spent and spend a lot of time and effort
adding data from virtually every country in the world. We would
also like people to know about our project and perhaps use or
contribute data themselves.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F</a></p>
<p>Also it's crucial the attribution has in marketing and promotion
of the project. Or are we having a Working group for that?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>About omitting permanently the "contributors" part by me is fine,
but i truly hope the argument of "lack of space to display" will
not be used like it's being abusively justified like it is now. <br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
</body>
</html>