[Osmf-talk] attribution: board letter to facebook

[Nuno Caldeira]

>
> I think that, even if it is already clear that Facebook's current
> practice violates attribution requirements in some cases, it still makes
> sense to postpone any enforcement action until the re-worked guidelines
> are done


They are not violating the attribution requirements, they are violating the
license.

because what we often hear in response to attribution requests
> is whining about "the requirements being not clear", and the new
> guidelines will hopefully make the requirements crystal clear so we can
> then say:


Whining about how to attribute is not even related to not attributing at
all. Requirements won't change the license, corporate interests seem to
advocate different interpretations of the ODbL and what OSMF has written in
the past.


@christoph if you check Mapbox Mapbox attribution page
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/

You acknowledg that they admite the visible attribution is required
according to ODbL:

The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, ©
OpenStreetMap and Improve this map. This attribution is *strictly required*
when using the Mapbox Streets tileset *due to OpenStreetMap's data source
ODbL license. *

however on Mapbox Maps for iOS and Mapbox Maps for Android they state:
" an information button automatic"  and "Mapbox includes this built-in
information button for your convenience. If you decide not to use it, you
must include attribution on the map in a text format"
so the "i" button was never mentioned from OSMF, merely a corporate
interpretation of what they thought was accept able or used by non open
data services (read, pay to be hidden) , despise on the same page stating
otherwise about the text attribution.

>From my perspective this "information button" was an invention from a
misleading interpretation of ODbL. to me ODbL is clear, you need to display
a notice reasonable calculated to anyone that views the data from derivated
works. I do not have to interact to view the notice.

Things have changed since we adopted ODbL and mobile devices are more
common these days and I do understand the argument of using that on mobile.
Therefore the new guidelines that's in on the work is intended to set it
clearly what's acceptable or not, since common sense seems to be a rare
thing nowadays and corporations are pushing the envelope on the lack of
action from the licensor. But that "i" button must not be used on non
mobile devices or hidden from multiple sources data being used (we all know
they will use multiple sources to force the visible attribution being
readable without interaction from the user).

Now the Mapbox wordmark (well for those companies that can't afford to be
Premium clients of theirs to hide it) is that "reasonable calculated"? does
it need to be more reasonable calculated than the mandatory attribution
that needs to be reasonably calculated as clearly written on the license?

As I said too many times, i have zero issues with companies using OSM data
(that's why we have open data, anyone can use but complying with the
license and showing where they got it in a *proudly* way), what I don't
like is hipocrisy and hiding from those that not aware of OSM existance and
knowledge that they too can improve the map.

it's not about the data, it's what you do with it. mentioning the source is
a basic academic value. We, OSMF must (not use the word "should" as we
learn from the wiki you linked) be bias and not fulfill corporate wishes.
Yes, dialogue is needed but not be making decisions blindly that opens
trojan horse interpretations.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20191011/c44ee11e/attachment.html>