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

[Yves]

Advertise better OSM => get better data => finally get a pure OSM map content. From our point of view it's a virtuous circle, isn't it? 
If other providers have less imperative attribution guidelines than us, then there is no reason to care about equal treatment. 
If concessions have to be made, maybe we could explicitly tolerate a short 'OSM' for multi-source maps when the required attributions is longer than ours alone. 
Yves 


Le 15 juin 2021 19:59:27 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> a écrit :
>
>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/20210615/4df3e48c/attachment.htm>