[Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Simon Poole]

I don't quite follow your argument here. According to the draft
guideline if a majority of the data displayed is derived from OSM, then
attribution needs to be displayed on map. So assuming that the
prerequisite is met, as you are saying, the draft guideline would
require exactly what you want.

The -other- problem with the site is that it is implying a partnership
which doesn't exist. Something which we clearly don't want for
commercial law and liability reasons, given the wording of the ODbL I
doubt that we can base such a requirement on the licence (but likely on
use of our trademarks).

Simon

Am 08.09.2019 um 12:11 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
>
> Here's another example of why we should not adopt the multiple sources
> attribution omission of our attribution. They list us as partners (?)
> https://www.wrld3d.com/3d-maps/custom-maps
> Use multiple sources and are not complying with ODbL by not showing
> the license.
> 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 <mailto: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
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
>     the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
>     appreciate feedback on.
>
>     Simon
>
>     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 <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190908/2c2cedfc/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20190908/2c2cedfc/attachment.sig>