[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Simon Poole]

Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a
> legal point of view, how it should be interpreted?

Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline.

>
> I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of
> introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the
> legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of
> introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential
> prosecution of infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is
> given from the original IP holders by means of the CTs, any
> modification of the current license has to be approved by a majority
> of active contributors.
>
> Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing
> these amendments/interpretations?
>
> Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of
> actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken?
> Is someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ?
>
> FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app
> in the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden,
> it is neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get
> to it by clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on
> "Data from TomTom and others ->"  (on my system nothing happens after
> the click, but that's likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app
> on iOS has no attribution whatsoever.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

Simon


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150922/f0053907/attachment.sig>