[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

Am 02.11.2019 um 15:07 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a strong "license change discussion deja-vu" here.
>
You're not the only one.
> It would perhaps behoove the LWG to take a step back from the question
> of "what could we enforce in court", and rather ask "what is the spirit
> of this license". We should not focus on the mechanics of the license
> and which parts might be enforceable how in which jurisdictions; we
> should define what our reading of the license is, and we should create
> an ecosystem of people and companies who are "our friends" and who stick
> to our reading of the license, whether or not that is held up by the law
> in their jurisdiction. And if people and companies don't adhere to our
> reading of the license, then they might still be legally in the clear
> but they aren't our friends any more.
>
> I think we are approaching that level of clout, and we can start using
> it. I think it is perfectly ok for us to say: "We'll only like you if
> you follow our reading of the license. If you follow your own reading of
> our license then that might be legal in your country, but it doesn't
> force us to like you".
>
> It would be absolutely wrong to think that we have to smilingly accept
> any use of our data that complies with our license as interpreted by
> courts and lawyers in that jurisdiction. It might be legal, but that
> doesn't make it "ok".
>
I don't believe the LWG would in general have a problem with a
statements along the lines of, lets say, "even if you are not legally
obliged to attribute us in all case, we would appreciate you still doing
so, because ...". That's not the problem,  the problem is the underlying
assumption that everything we are asking for is "the law" and that we
can enforce that, or looking to the LWG to enforce things which clearly
can't be.

And when the pressuring of consumers gets to the point that we are
essentially requiring things that are neither in the licence nor in the
law, we are violating the open definition and the obligation of the OSMF
to only offer data on open terms.

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/osmf-talk/attachments/20191102/1c83918f/attachment.sig>