[Osmf-talk] Fwd: AW: Lizenzverstoß bei Magix Foto auf CD&DVD 9

[Matija Nalis]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 04:26:01PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > [...] we would have to have some other form of
> > communication within the community to tell each other which "cases" 
> > we're working on (so that nobody gets contacted from more than one side 
> > at the same time!) [...] it must not 
> > come across as a "hall of shame" but as an internal tool that helps us 
> > monitor what we (as a group) are doing.
> 
> If it's only intended as an internal tool, does it need to be visible
> for visitors who are not logged in (and search engines)? Mappers who
> want to use that page coordinating their communication with map users
> need a wiki account anyway, as we don't allow IP edits. To me, limiting
> read access for that kind of page could easily prevent the "hall of
> shame" effect.

Good point Tobias, I agree with you - that would be the best solution 
(if wiki software allows for it - does anybody know?)

In any case, putting someone on that page *without* even sending them that
*first* e-mail should be prohibited IMO. It is not helping anyone, and it is
needlessly alienating such companies (and other ones who stumble upon the
page and decide that they'll probably get more bad press from such minor
omissions without even being warned first of their inadvertent omissions,
than from all possible gains from OSM). 

That is, if they're going to be put on such list, they *at least* deserve to
have e-mail sent to them a minute earlier so they can correct their mistake
quickly and be removed from list ASAP.

And currently it seems to me that *most* of the companies mentioned on the 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
have not even got that first e-mail (or the wiki page is terribly outdated
and does not fill it's promise of being helpful tool to help coordinated
action).

So I propose that either someone contacts those companies and updates
"contacted" field on the wiki, or if that is not done in some reasonable
time (say, until the end of the year ?) that entries that have "no" (or
empty) in "contacted" field be removed from the "hall of shame" to 
minimize such damage.

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.