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

[Robert Banick]

Sorry to jump in only so briefly, but a small point struck me reading
this discussion:

"I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the
text.  When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap.  "

As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It
seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a
mapping project is a poor idea.

Otherwise, as I contributor I second Mikel about being proud to have
my work represented as suggested by Alex.

On 4/26/13, Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>