[Osmf-talk] Draft Attribution Guidelines, possible vote at end of this month & new guidelines.

[steveaOSM]

On Jun 15, 2021, at 7:55 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> I've been stocking up on ropes as of late, I would quote you a volume discount for say a 100 or so.
> 
> Seriously the "new" guidelines are no more enforceable as the previous texts and as they do not cover one of the major bones of contention, and do not really change the catch 22 situation some users will find themselves in.
> 
> Assuming that the intent is that we want OSM data to be used in the 1st place, something I now and then doubt.

I don't understand "ropes," so, sorry about that (I'm not stupid, perhaps we don't share a cultural reference).  We DO want OSM data to be used in the 1st place.  This isn't a project about shouting into an empty chasm, it is about developing and publishing quality cartographic data that people find USEFUL and USE.  Clearly, people DO use them, as we find ourselves chasing scofflaws who break our attribution rules.  If that's unintentional on their part, let's fix that, only we can.

My point:  attribution which is both enforceable and enforced is REQUIRED.  We must be heart-attack serious about this.  If we have to jump through some technical hoops to make that happen in EVERY SINGLE CASE, we can do that, there are plenty of smart people here.  What seems to be lacking (I might be wrong) is our will to do so, our ability to craft the correct legal language and the required follow-up when it is discovered that somebody (oops!) slips up.  ALL of these must be nailed down tightly for us to move forward here.

While I'm not the only one to use "clear words" about this (it seems a widespread sentiment), it is the important FOLLOW-THROUGH to actually implement this that seems to be lacking.  C'mon, OSMF, we can DO this.  If the Guidelines as written don't do enough, suggest improvements to them, please.

If there are "major bones of contention" that aren't addressed, let's address them.  That's why we're "talking" here.