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

[Simon Poole]

Am 15.06.2021 um 17:12 schrieb Yves:
> "they do not cover one of the major bones of contention"
> Which one if I may?

Attribution when OSM is not the dominant source of data and/or 
potentially just one of many dozen constituent parts of what is being 
presented.

In hindsight this is simply an oversight in the ODbL 1.0 which simply 
doesn't cater for this case (attribution-wise, in other areas it does). 
To resolve the issue we can either use a lenient interpretation of the 
licence text, we can revise the current licence or change it completely. 
The last three years have shown that the 1st is not possible because of 
a very loud group that is adamant about being very literal, the board 
refused to even consider the 2nd, even though it would have the 
advantage of a democratic process to determine the outcome, not to 
mention that we could have fixed the couple of existing bloopers in the 
licence at the same time. The last hasn't really ever been discussed in 
depth, but having a geo-data specific license instead of one that tries 
to solve the general case could have some advantages.

Simon

> Regards, Yves
>
> Le 15 juin 2021 16:55:54 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> a 
> écrit :
>
>     Am 15.06.2021 um 07:05 schrieb steveaOSM:
>
>         ... OSM has let too many, for far too long, get away with way
>         too much in this regard. It is overdue that we end this abuse
>         of our requirements to properly attribute OSM as the copyright
>         holder of the map data being used. No exceptions. None. None
>         whatsoever. “No matter what." Is this clear enough? We can’t
>         mess around with this: it is perhaps THE most serious thing
>         OSMF must protect and defend. ... 
>
>
>     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.
>
>     Simon
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20210615/2373839c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20210615/2373839c/attachment.sig>