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

[Gerhard Peter]

Hello, my name is Gerhard (german, living in France), I'm new here.  
Excuse my bad english.

I'm ok with Frederic,
Mathias' proposal of mail is somewhat strong.
We want OSM to be useful and to be used.

It seems to me that it weren't the two-seconds publicity shot which  
are the question,
but is Matrix using OSM for their  "Reiserouten-Animation".

I think Matrix should put the licence mention into
a)  the interface where their clients draw the voyages,
and b) in the animated map they give to their clients.

Somthing like "Kartenunterlagen von http://www.openstreetmap.org/  
unter Lizenz CreativeCommons-by-sa".

I don't use Matrix' services,
so I do not know if they mention "us" there.
Do they ?

Thank you
Gerhard
---

Le 24 nov. 09 à 15:33, Frederik Ramm a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Lulu-Ann at gmx.de wrote:
>> Sorry, because of a typo this mail did not go through.
>> This should be the first mail.
>
> The way I read this is:
>
> * Company makes software that allows access to OSM maps
> * does not give proper attribution
> * is told to please add proper attribution
> * says: "sorry we forgot, we'll add it in the next release, and by the
> way thank you for the great project"
>
> I think this is good, and the process should stop there.
>
> Matthias points out that they have a video on their web site has a
> 3-second scene containing an OSM screenshot. I think it would be ok to
> ask them to mention, either in the video or on the page, that maps  
> come
> from OSM and are CC-BY-SA licensed. I would, however, avoid claiming
> that they have done something "illegal", and I would not continue
> discussing what they may have done wrong in the past. Also, Matthias'
> e-mail contains a lengthy discussion of how he cannot believe that  
> they
> really forgot, which basically accuses them of lying.
>
> Matthias' proposed mail does have a more conciliatory tone towards the
> end but still I believe it is over the top, and it makes him sound  
> like
> a nitpicker. I also think that the catalogue of demands that Matthias
> puts up (mentioning OSM and its license in (a) the product EULA, (b)  
> the
> product about box, (c) the "assistant" dialog window and (d) in all
> screenshots and on the product web page) is a very strict  
> interpretation
> of the CC-BY-SA license and the company would be likely to be told
> differently if they asked other community members.
>
> I would suggest to throw away this draft. Instead write a short  
> message
> thanking them for their understanding and respectfully asking for  
> proper
> attribution where OSM screenshots are used in advertising material.
>
> If they release the next version of the software and still have  
> nothing
> there, we can still sue them.
>
> Bye
> Frederik