<html><head></head><body>I would agree that the clause is nonsense and should be removed.<br><br>If the gudelines are more strict than the licence then the OSMF is adding restrictions to the licence, which directly contradicts the licence text. If the intention is not to provide a safe harbour, then why is the OSMF working on the document in the 1st place?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Am 12. Juni 2021 14:20:56 MESZ schrieb ndrw6 <ndrw6@redhazel.co.uk>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre dir="auto" class="k9mail">I think the document should clarify its legal status more clearly and <br>prominently.<br><br>"Guidelines" in the title is good.<br><br>The following statement in the introduction is both wrong and not <br>prominent enough:<br>"These guidelines are not a substitute for the legal text itself. If the <br>two texts disagree, the legal text takes precedence."<br><br>- It is wrong because it implies the document can augment the ODbL by <br>adding clauses to it. Guidelines are simply our *interpretation* of the <br>license. Our *guarantee* that conforming to these extra rules will <br>automatically address attribution requirements of ODbL, no questions <br>asked. Finally, our *wish* of how members of OpenStreetMap community <br>should behave - while this is not a requirement it is something we look <br>into account when project governance is at stake.<br><br>- A statement about a legal status (after corrections) deserves its own <br>section in the document, preferably before the introduction.<br><br>ndrw6<br><br>On 12/06/2021 12:16, R. A. McCann (OSMF Board) wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">Hello OSMers,<br><br>The OSMF Board is considering an update to the OSMF's guideline on how to attribute OSM data. See below for details:<br><br>----- Original message -----<br>From: "R. A. McCann (OSMF Board)" <rory.mccann@osmfoundation.org><br>To: OSMF Talk <osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org><br>Cc: OSMF Board <board@osmfoundation.org><br>Subject: Draft Attribution Guidelines, possible vote at end of this month & new guidelines.<br>Date: Saturday, 12 June 2021 13:09<br><br>Hello OSMF members,<br><br>The OSMF Board has been working on an update to the OSMF's Attribution Guidelines for a little while, and in conjunction with the Licensing Working Group, and external legal counsel, have settled on a draft Guidelines. We would like to share this with you, the OSM(F) community.<br><br>Here's the current draft:<br><a href="https://wiki.osm.org/Draft_Attribution_Guideline/2021v0.9">https://wiki.osm.org/Draft_Attribution_Guideline/2021v0.9</a><br><br>Perhaps the most prominent change compared to previous drafts is the guidance for interactive maps: We set an expectation that attribution is visible for at least some time without user interaction to fall within the safe harbour outlined by the Attribution Guidelines. This was a major point of feedback during previous rounds of consultation.<br><br>The OSMF Board will probably vote to accept this at our next board meeting which is on 14:00 UTC 2021-06-25. This meeting is open to all OSMF Members. More details on this meeting: <a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2021-06">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2021-06</a><br><br>The OSMF Board wants to know what you think.<br>If you would like to leave feedback, you can reply to this email, or email the board privately at board@osmfoundation.org<br><br></blockquote><hr>talk mailing list<br>talk@openstreetmap.org<br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br></pre></blockquote></div><div style='white-space: pre-wrap'><div class='k9mail-signature'>-- <br>Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.</div></div></body></html>