[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Fri Aug 9 12:19:40 UTC 2019


Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution 
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service 
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more 
> prominently than OSM.

That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an
obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.

"Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big
Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the
ODbL.

The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution
other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying
"there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an
infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause.

But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
be at least on the same level of 
prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much 
> like being written by corporate representatives

Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a
magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever
since, so nope. :)

Richard

[1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html



More information about the talk mailing list