[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 16:32:48 UTC 2019

Às 14:56 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
> On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 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.

Guidelines by the licensor

> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of 
> our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final 
> decision on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to 
> *avoid *disputes arising in the first place and can be considered by 
> the courts in coming to their verdict. 

from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

what companies are doing, is exactly the opposite, they justify their 
actions based on the license interpretation to their own interests, not 
taking into account what the licensor says.

The license is clear:

> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
> Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
> Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must*include a notice* associated with
> the *Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person* that uses,
> *views*, accesses, interacts with, *or is otherwise exposed to the 
> Produced**
> **Work aware that Content was obtained from *the Database, Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
> is available under this License.
Unless someone can explain me how i'm i suppose to see the notice when 
i'm view or am exposed to their produced work if they are not showing it 
visibly and clearly without me having to interact to either click an "i" 
icon or go through endless submenus to figure out what's the map source. 
the word "interacts" is there for a reason...

> 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
> simplest answer.

quoting ODbL:

> 4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database.
They must keep the notice intact, therefore attributing OSM.

When we switched from CC to ODbL, this was documented as:

> Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.


Ditching the attribution for second rate attribution is not only unfair, 
does not meet this and also goes against OSMF objects of the foundation 
Unless someone explains me how we are promoting the growdth, development 
and distribution of free geospatial data to those that are not aware of 
it by hiding the source of the wonderful maps those companies do with 
the data from this lovely community.

> you show users and viewers of whatever you do with our data clearly 
> where you got the data from. A lot of contributors have spent and 
> spend a lot of time and effort adding data from virtually every 
> country in the world. We would also like people to know about our 
> project and perhaps use or contribute data themselves. 


Also it's crucial the attribution has in marketing and promotion of the 
project. Or are we having a Working group for that?

About omitting permanently the "contributors" part by me is fine, but i 
truly hope the argument of "lack of space to display" will not be used 
like it's being abusively justified like it is now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190809/09b8b405/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the talk mailing list