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

[Donal Hunt]

Two quick comments:

The ropes reference is possibly about "not tying ourselves in knots" but
even as a native English speaker it took some effort to make the connection.

While I agree that the OSMF should defend the attribution conditions of
using the data, I also believe they should do so in a manner that is in the
spirit of the global community. That would rule out MPAA- style "fire and
forget" messaging to data users that aren't complying with the attribution.

>From a governance perspective, I would expect to see an annual report
indicating the level of improper attribution detected, investigated,
correspondence initiated, issues resolved and issues escalated to the LWG /
lawyers for further engagement. I hope formal legal engagement would be
rare.

Anyway... We've strayed away from the core of this specific discussion.
Enforcement is outside the scope of the guidelines discussion but it may be
helpful for context within the big picture.

Donal

On Tue 15 Jun 2021, 16:36 steveaOSM, <steveaOSM at softworkers.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> 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/20210615/91239056/attachment.htm>