[Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 10:11:29 UTC 2019
Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple sources
attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as partners (?)
Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing the
Seen multiple maps by their clients and they show data "copyright l.map"
I have confirmed with multiple contributors that largely the data used is
OSM and it's around a year old dump of the planet.
Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> escreveu em sex, 9/08/2019 às 08:45 :
> As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
> last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
> address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
> years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
> parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
> we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
> minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
> provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
> something different.
> We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
> largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
> make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
> next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
> break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
> appreciate feedback on.
> PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
> another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk