[Osmf-talk] attribution: board letter to facebook

Peter Barth osm at won2.de
Sat Oct 19 19:41:26 UTC 2019


Hi,

Simon Poole schrieb:
> >> Facebook to provide feedback as well.
> 
> What is so dubious about that? Facebook simply indicated that they would
> like to provide some feedback and we've noted that we are expecting that
> to arrive in one form or the other.

I don't think this is dubious. Nonetheless, as Christoph stated
initially, an open process and discussion should be preferred. I'd be
interested in the actual input they give, and I'm interested in the
input Mapbox gives (or are they refraining from that discussion inside 
LWG as one of the larger license infringers?).

We've seen in the past (re imports, editing,..) how Facebook's
communication works, how they single out mappers and influence or quiten
them. I am not necessarily worried that you (Simon) get influenced or
that LWG's output will suffer from Facebooks input. But I think it's
crucial to be able to have the discussions, process, decisions,.. in the
open -- especially in the case where the guideline would contain parts
that are not shared by all of the community. I would like to be able to
tell others "look at these links, judge for yourself" and not only "I
know Simon, he's a decent guy, everything is fine!".

> We would all be more than happy if the OSMF provided an alternative to
> the WGs with equivalent functionality (not to mention the mailing
> lists), but there isn't one at the current point in time.

It's not the first time I read something like that and the last time
where I had a discussion about this with someone it turned out that this
"same functionality" boiled down to "I need the service to be provided
by Google" or stuff like that ;-)

Enlighten me/us. What's the list of features you need to switch now.
Perhaps OSMF can help :-)

Peda




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list