[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:

> Personally I believe that the 'Licensor' of planet.osm is OSMF (who create a
> Derived Work from the individual contributions each week). We would need to
> check this with a lawyer.

Hm. Is planet.osm derived or collective?

> Personally I really don't see any problem with jumping from a short textual
> string on paper (ie "licenced from www.openstreetmap.org
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/>  (CC BY SA)") to a full list of contributors
> on the openstreetmap web site. In this day and age that seems totally
> 'reasonable to the medium or means', especially as I think we should expect
> to have a list of 100K + contributors in due course

I think that's the (potential) problem, though. The licence isn't  
really written with 100K+ contributors in mind. Personally, yes, I  
agree it's the best way to do it - it's just a matter of whether the  
legalese agrees.

> Any thoughts about what should go in the 'flannel panel' and is that really
> necessary in all cases?

Not in all cases. But CC-BY-SA says you have to cite the licence URI;  
"the URI that the Licensor specifies to be associated with the work";  
a credit "identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work";  
"the name of the Original Author if supplied"; and "the title of the  
Work if supplied".

It's not exactly snappy. In fact, if we were to use OSM-derived maps  
in our magazine (we don't), half the time the credit would actually be  
longer than the space allotted (vertically up the side of the pic).  
That's daft.

So, instead, I'd probably use something like "Includes CC-BY-SA map  
data from www.openstreetmap.org" in the usual pic credit location,  
then have the blurb in the flannel panel with the full licence URL and  
anything else. This also means we could actually write something in  
English explaining what this actually _means_.

cheers
Richard