[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
osm at imagico.de
Fri Aug 9 13:56:37 UTC 2019
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst 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. [...]
Just for understanding what second rate attribution is: For example the
map on the bottom right of:
printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but
showing OSM attribution only on user activity.
> 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.
It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how
to work with OSM data to comply with the license. No data user has to
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to
comply with the license. The Guidelines should never suggest something
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule)
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by
the license. And saying "if you attribute in this way that is
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.
And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM
compared to other attributions given this is less the case. In the
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the
> 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. :)
You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider this
statement to be an argument on the matter.
For better understanding: Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in the
design of the document and lists a number of example to demonstrate
that. You could argue the observation of there being such a pattern or
you could argue the individual examples. You however did neither of
these in your statement.
More information about the talk