[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Fri Aug 9 19:46:31 UTC 2019

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example 
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but 
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.

> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how 
> to comply with the license.

And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.

Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a

> > 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.

For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like 
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one 
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.


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

More information about the talk mailing list