kakrueger at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 14:55:57 UTC 2011
On 12/20/2011 04:44 AM, SteveCoast wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> There are many reasons why this logo thread hasn't worked so smoothly, but
>> I'd pick out two differences. First, there's not really much community
>> buy-in for a new logo.
> So to be clear in your comparison here, you feel there is community buy-in for putting company logos on OSM?
There is a big Bing logo in potlatch and josm as well for attribution.
When Bing offered their great aerial imagery all the developers rushed
to add the necessary code to deal with attribution and to be able to
display the Bing logo as requested. Everyone was happy then too and I
didn't see any complaints of putting a company logo on OSM.
The community recognises that attribution is important and therefore
accepts attribution to others were it is justified. I haven't heard any
complaints about adding attribution in the case of mapquest either.
If anything, you can complain about having commercially sponsored layers
in the first place on osm.org (not about attributing them if you do).
But imho they add value as additional styles and also demonstrates
clearly a core principle of openness, i.e. that osm data can be used
> When you're talking about how it's good that important members feel able to make decisions, which of course makes sense, why does that extend to putting company logos on OSM but not changing OSMs logo? Is it that the MQ logo is slightly smaller? That it's at the bottom of the page? What are the factors?
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the osmf-talk