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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

for what it's worth, and as someone who is often asked about 
clarification regarding attribution rules, I think the draft is good.

I can see that there are a few bits and pieces that warrant further 
refinement but I would be very much in favour of accepting these 
guidelines as they are while at the same time signalling openness to 
continue working on them where they should prove to be out of sync with 
what we want.

I think such an approach works better than trying to cover every 
hypothetical base from the start, and I see no reason to be alarmist in 
any way about the document. After all, if someone thinks something in 
the document is too onerous for them, they can always disregard it at 
their own risk (and especially at the risk of alienating the community). 
You might be legally allowed to ignore what we want, but you can't 
expect to be our friend then.

I feel that this draft comes closer to community expectations than 
earlier drafts produced by LWG. I appreciate and respect the time LWG 
has spent on the topic, and there might be some bits and pieces here 
where lawyers say "but you can't want that", but frankly, when having to 
decide to side with the community or with the lawyers, I'd shrug and 
choose the community side any day. When OSM started, GIS professionals 
told us we can't do it too ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"