<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Dec 8, 2020, 18:41 by rory@technomancy.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>Can you give an example of something that would follow<br></div><div>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice<br></div><div>and still would not fulfill ODBL?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a court case.<br></div></blockquote><div>While details can be argued and litigated some things are clear.<br></div><div><br></div><div>For example big prominent attribution is certainly fine, while completely<br></div><div>missing attribution and displaying worldwide map is certainly not.<br></div><div><br></div><div>So, we may safely recommend using visible attribution what is<br></div><div>- certainly fulfilling ODBL<br></div><div>- not a burden for someone using OSM data in a good faith<br></div><div>- in our interest <br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using “should”, rather than “must”.<br></div></blockquote><div>I am not a native speaker, personally I wold be fine with strengthening "should"<br></div><div>to "must".<br></div> </body>
</html>