[OSM-legal-talk] (c) statement on openstreetmap.org slippy map?
jeff at gwhat.org
Thu Jan 17 17:18:06 GMT 2013
I agree - we should practice exactly what we're requiring others to do,
which is adhere to the terms of our own license.
I do not, however, agree that the URL makes it clear that the data comes
from OpenStreetMap - for example, data shown on www.foo.co could easily be
from www.bar.org. Again - look at the Bing maps example. Everyone probably
thinks all the data comes from just Microsoft, but it's clearly marked (c)
Also, to the discussions about whether we should do stuff just because
Google (or Microsoft) does them. In general, I'd say no. In the area of
legal protection, where they probably have a full-time staff of trademark
and copyright lawyers, I'd say yes.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> On 17.01.2013 02:29, Jeff Meyer wrote:
>> Should we be marking our own map at openstreetmap.org
>> <http://openstreetmap.org> with the same markings we ask others to use?
> This has been discussed frequently in the past.
> It is not necessary, from a legal point of view, that we create such
> markings. (The license requires that you make it clear that the data comes
> from OpenStreetMap but if your URL is "www.openstreetmap.org" then that
> makes it clear enough.)
> Personally, I do think that it might make sense to put such markings on
> the map even though they are redundant, for the purpose of instruction -
> some people might look at our web page and think "I'll simply do as they
> do, they'll know what is right".
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Global World History Atlas
jeff at gwhat.org
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> osm: Historical
/ my OSM user page <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer>
t: @GWHAThistory <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory>
f: GWHAThistory <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk