[OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)

[Mikel Maron]

Hi

I don't think there's much existing agreement on how we attribute, just standard practice. I as a contributor never "asserted" how things should be attributed.

For instance, looking at the FAQ
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F


> Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".


That says requested attribution. There's nothing required?

> "Because OpenStreetMap is its contributors, you may omit the word "contributors" if space is limited."

Indeed.

I think we're overvaluing text in the standard practice. No one reads the messy text at the bottom of maps, except for map developers. Something recognizable visually, without reading, is going to do a lot more for awareness of OpenStreetMap then some text that just gets ignored.

For this contributor, I would be proud to have my work credited by "by OSM", or "with OSM". Copyright is there legally, on the copyright page. We are more than copyright, we are community. And the newly designed page is a great improvement, great welcome, to not only explain the legalities, but what OSM is about ... people who care about data.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


>________________________________
> From: Richard Weait <richard at weait.com>
>To: Kathleen Danielson <kathleen.danielson at gmail.com> 
>Cc: Talk <talk at openstreetmap.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor mark)
> 
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson <kathleen.danielson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? 
>
>Removing "OpenStreetMap" from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap.  It is good for OpenStreetMap that people who benefit from the use of OpenStreetMap be informed that it is OpenStreetMap from which they are gaining a benefit.  
>
>
>Removing "Contributors" from the attribution requirement is bad for OpenStreetMap.  Data contributors are the very core of the project.  They create and improve the data from which we all benefit.  The "contributors" portion of the attribution requirement was part of the discussion in the license change process. Contributors asserted that a simple "copyright OpenStreetMap" was not enough.  The OpenStreetMap data contributors deserve recognition on produced works.
> 
>The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text 
>
>"Reducing" ?  The image does not reduce the text the image eliminates 
the text.  Specifically, the image eliminates every text character 
entity.  The image eliminates "© OpenStreetMap Contributors" or 25 letters and copyright symbol.  
>
>
>If you stretch, really really far, and try to accept that an image of a letter is as good as a letter, then the image eliminates "© pen treet ap Contributors".  In that tortured version of reality, the image eliminates 22 letters of 25 and the only explicit copyright symbol.  In exchange, the letters "by" are added, which suggest, at best, something less than copyright.  
>
> 
>in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, 
>
>
>By visual identifier, you mean image, right?  :-)  
>
>
>I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text.  When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap.  
>
> 
>and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. 
>>
>There is already a copyright page.  The link to the copyright page is already a requirement.  
>
>In summary, the idea of a visual mark or image to replace the required attribution statement is harmful to OpenStreetMap.  
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130425/3940fc10/attachment.html>