[OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Dec 27 14:47:01 UTC 2018



sent from a phone

On 27. Dec 2018, at 14:04, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>> Am 26.12.2018 um 11:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>> 
>> It seems more straightforward to fix this upstream rather than asking a myriad of downstream users to patch it. As it is with one of our most prominent users, maybe this specific issue should be discussed on the board?
>> 
> This is not the way (as you know) the ODbL, or for what its worth any of
> the CC licences, work, every distributor of an OSM derived work is
> licensed directly from the OSMF and in the case of non-sub-licensable
> content with similar licences the respective licensors.


I didn’t mean to call for immediate legal action. If mapbox distributes a framework that doesn’t attribute in the default configuration to OSM as we prefer to, it seems it would be efficient to convince them rather than their hundreds of clients, even if they might not have legal liability from die Zeit showing an incorrect attribution (although you could argue, as they provide templates which are infringing the attribution requirements as defined and interpreted by ODbL and LWG, that they might be held liable as well (by their clients)).
As they use the same css attribution styles for their own maps as well, eg
https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/streets-v9.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#1.07/54.1/7.7

it directly concerns them anyway.

Cheers, Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181227/357c11ae/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list