[Talk-GB] non-attributed map

[ndrw6]

There are two problems with these guidelines:
- They have no value in court. They are just an interpretation of the 
license by OSMF. There is nothing preventing e.g. Amazon from writing 
their own guidelines on how their employees should interpret the 
license. As long as they don't conflict with it, neither would be more 
correct than the other.
- They don't represent opinions of all contributors. There is 
(currently) a specific process for changing the license described in the 
contributor terms and it doesn't mention any guidelines:

"OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part 
of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following 
licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual 
contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open 
licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from 
time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by 
at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors."

The part where guidelines are useful is in finding a consensus. OSMF 
promises (I don't think this is actually spelled out in the document but 
it can be inferred from it) that they will not sue anyone for ODbL 
infringement if the user complies with the guidelines. Similarly, OSMF 
is free to distinguish between good and bad members of community 
restricting or awarding them with certain perks. These soft benefits are 
quite valuable and many users will be happy to comply with the 
guidelines but these should not be mistaken for the database license.

Back to the original topic. The correct solution would be to approach 
CyclingUK and *ask* them to include attribution, while providing them 
with guidelines as OSMF recommendations. If they disagree it is between 
them and OSMF to resolve it.

ndrw6

On 05/09/2021 12:08, Michael Collinson wrote:
> I may not share Simon's slightly acid tongue :-) but I do agree with him 
> to use/promote the OSMF guidelines as much as possible. So I stand 
> slightly admonished for not noticing myself.
> 
> In copyright cases, the expressed published views of the publisher carry 
> weight - and corporate lawyers know that. In our our case, the OSMF is 
> the formal publisher: So please do reference OSMF site versions of 
> guidelines where possible. We were very careful when setting them up to 
> go through a formal process, including community consultation and board 
> level approval, so that they carry as much weight as possible.
> 
> Mike
> 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
> 
> 
> On 2021-09-05 11:59, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>>
>> Simon,
>>
>> no. That box is not written in invisble ink. I wonder, though, how 
>> linking to the Wiki within the community (this mailinglist) wasn't the 
>> right way to answer Graham's question.
>>
>> Kai
>>
>> On 05.09.2021 11:17, Simon Poole wrote:
>>> Just a note on the side: 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline 
>>> has a big notice at the top that in my experience seems to be written 
>>> in invisible ink. you should always be referring to the definite 
>>> documents published by the OSMF and not, in the best case historical, 
>>> documents on the wiki, in this case 
>>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.09.2021 um 06:44 schrieb Kai Michael Poppe:
>>>> Hi Graham,
>>>>
>>>> the Wiki [1] it says:
>>>> "So, we have focused on what "insubstantial" rather than 
>>>> "substantial" means. We've set the boundary we are happy with at 
>>>> basically: village map OK, town map not OK."
>>>> (with that sentence describing where not attributing OSM would be 
>>>> ok-ish)
>>>>
>>>> As the map you linked is essentially a world-map that just happens 
>>>> to only have POIs on the Island of Great Britain I would always 
>>>> argue that that is substantial use.
>>>>
>>>> I trust that you've seen the Wiki page [2] for pages lacking proper 
>>>> attribution, there you'll also find an example email if you need 
>>>> help telling them your concern. If you add the site to the table on 
>>>> the site that would also be great for tracking progress.
>>>>
>>>> Kai
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline
>>>> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>