[Osmf-talk] Relationship of Facebook and Apple to the OSM Foundation

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 08:52:47 UTC 2018

2018-06-19 8:10 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> > In the interest of transparency, may we know if Facebook and Apple are
> > in fact Corporate Members
> They are, and
> > [2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members
> needs to be updated. Thank you for pointing it out.

This is great news, maybe it will be possible to convince them in this
gemium to attribute OSM like the license requests it? Currently there is
still missing the "©" for OSM data Apple is apparently using (according to
their info screen 2 clicks away from the map, and unlike the attribution to
"TomTom and others", it is only available when you have internet
connectivity, and there is no mention of the cc-by-sa 2.0 license for the
data that is from OSM 2011/2012 according to their attribution).

Facebook has integrated OSM via Mapbox, and as far as I can see does not
provide attribution as required by the community guidelines either:

For those of you that are not using these services, Facebook shows, also on
desktop screens with lots of space, in the left corner the "here" logo (not
linked) and in the right corner just an "i". If you click on the "i", it
shows 2 links: "Map Data Legal Notices" and "Report a problem". The first
link leads to this page: https://www.facebook.com/maps/attribution_terms
(i.e. attribution to here on the map, to osm 2 clicks away).

   - Map Data Legal Notices
   - HERE
   © 2018 HERE
   - Mapbox
   © 2018 Mapbox
   - OpenStreetMap
   © OpenStreetMap contributors

Has the board been looking into this? Are Apple or Facebook significant
enough to merit a closer look? Apple has been refusing to recognize the
copyright for cc-by-sa licensed data for 6 years now. Are we going to
tolerate neglecting the license terms by everybody, or only by the big
players with big legal departments? Maybe we should issue a statement that
cc-by-sa never effectively applied to our data, as the license was
unsuitable and not enforceable? Am I interpreting this wrong, and we should
adjust the Legal FAQ to common practise?


PS: This is the page I used for looking into facebooks map attribution:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20180619/04aeb4f3/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list