<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>May 13, 2020, 12:39 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 12.05.2020 um 23:03 schrieb Mateusz
Konieczny via talk:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 12, 2020, 05:48 by <a href="mailto:rockytvbr@gmail.com" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">rockytvbr@gmail.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote><div>As Joseph said:<br></div><blockquote><div>The attribution goes on the map.<br></div><div>This is not a difficult requirement to meet.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote><div>The most recent version of the guidelines<br></div><div>drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn
community criticism<br></div><div>about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially
hidden attribution.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the
guidelines?<br></div></blockquote><div>I commented on<br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Attribution_Guideline" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Attribution_Guideline</a><br></div><div>but I am unsure is it a good place because I got no reply.<br></div></blockquote><p>Expecting a reply is unreasonable, taking the comments in to
account not (which we did).<br></p></blockquote><div>Allowing to hide attribution on mobile remained present in this proposal and AFAIK<br></div><div>it was one of primary reasons why Draft Attribution Guideline is staying as a draft for now<br></div><div>rather than being adopted.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(though I was participating in just some meetings on Mumble).<br></div><div><br></div><div>And it deserves an explanation why not showing attribution<br></div><div>is considered as ODBL compatible that requires to ensure that user is aware of data source<br></div><div>and license.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And, no, a typical user will not click on a hidden button or check deeply in settings.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><blockquote type="cite"><div>One may also join online meeting of a Legal Working Group<br></div><div>and talk there.<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group</a><br></div><div>"The group now meets every 2nd Thursday of the month, at
20:00 UTC, on <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mumble">Mumble</a>, unless rescheduled."<br></div></blockquote><p>As you know the LWG has handed the subject back to the board
months ago, not to mention that we provided ample time and venues
to provide input on the matter and that is long closed. Just
because somebody wasn't paying attention doesn't mean that you
restart a process when they turn up and feel they have a right to
their opinion being heard*.<br></p><p>Simon<br></p><p>* that was one of the main reasons the OSM licence change was
such a traumatic experience. <br></p></blockquote><div>Well, in that case comments may be useful for next improved version or for a board.<br></div><div><br></div><div>There may be a better place to post them, but I am not aware about anything better.<br></div> </body>
</html>