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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jun 20, 2021, 23:32 by simon at poole.ch:

>
>
>
> Am 16.06.2021 um 10:43 schrieb Mateusz      Konieczny via osmf-talk:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jun 15, 2021, 19:59 by >> simon at poole.ch>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>> In such case it may be worth addressing, but        deliberate misinterpreting of license seems
>> to be a poor way to achieve this.
>>
> It isn't "misinterpreting" it, it is interpreting it in the light of    an oversight in the text (just as fading away attribution or splash    screens does not literally fit the text in the licence).
>  
>
(1) why splash    screens does not literally fit the text in the licence? 

Unless I am missing something ODbL requires effect - hiring someone to stand next to produced
work all time and explain data source would also fulfill attribution requirements.

"Example notice" is quite explicitly only an example, I see nothing that would disallow less usual
attribution methods.

(2) are you claiming that waiving explicitly required attribution for some uses can be done
just because someone considers it as an oversight?

Without changing actual license text?

Despite that there are not such exemptions at all in 
"4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any DerivativeDatabase, or the Database
as part of a Collective Database, then Youmust: (...)"
section
 
I am not a lawyer but that is quite surprising to me. I am well aware that abusive clauses
can be struck from contracts and made void, but it seems to be a different case.


>>> 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
>>>
>> As far as I see license is quite clear -        attribution reaching a typical user is mandatory.
>>
> See above.
>  
>
How can 
"You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated
to make any Person that..."
be intepretation as allowing "attribution" that will not be seen by a typical user?

>>> , 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.
>>>
>> Are this bloobers listed somewhere?
>>
> Somewhere deep in the wiki I had a list at one time.
>  
>
Please link it if you will ever find it!

>> I am also curious which specific maps/projects        were 
>> affected by this composite data problem.
>>
> Apple would be the poster boy example, but there are lots.
>  
>
Is it possible to view Apple maps without owning iPhone or other
Apple device?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20210625/c5878b90/attachment.htm>