[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 22:27:41 UTC 2019

> Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is 
> completely missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's 
> missing and that it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where 
> they are getting their data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If 
> they are looking into it, then why not believe they are looking into 
> it? They will probably fix it after they figure it out. DJI fixed it 
> after investigating, and it took them a while to investigate as well.

By inspecting their code from the link i shared you get. 
unless they are using Mapbox without their attribution which i presume 
would be unauthorized use of Mapbox....either that or are premium 
clients (i did asked them that, they didn't reply obviously). None the 
less I gave up on asking Mapbox to make sure their clients comply with 
our license and their terms of service, as they ignore it. Which is a 
shame coming from a OSMF corporate member. Anyway i have asked, several 
times, even public, another OSMF corporate member to do the same, still 
displaying HERE logo on our data. Probably they take HERE seriously 
(legal) and not OSMF or OSM contributors.

About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel (the 
company that omitted the attribution and runs 
https://dronesafetymap.com/) and are now using Mapbox instead as you can 
see here https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox owns me a cup of 
tea for another client, oh well i can refuse that cup of tea for adding 
the attribution proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i 
think they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of proudly showing it. 
It's not about the data, it's what you do with it that matters and 
Mapbox does it well, but hiding the source is dirty.

> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? 
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do 
> others in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data 
> sources, after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.

Discussing the reasonable definition is nonsense. Also comparing us to 
the others in the industry is not reasonable as we do not accept money 
for providing data or removing attribution.

Why not 100 click attribution? well that wasn't, isn't and never will be 
the spirit of open data. Unless OSMF is going against it's owns Objects 
of the foundation articles:

> 3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:
>     (1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free
>     geospatial data; and
>     (2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.

> A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data 
> sources after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data 
> is also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?

Thanks for the suggestion, maybe we should fix it and give the example 
of one click only, just to avoid unreasonable interpretations. Anyway 
it's this kind of misleading interpretation of adding a simply “© 
OpenStreetMap contributors” to the data they are using, like it was some 
kind of secret (probably is for none OSMers and general public) that 
places OSMF projet at risk as it clearly does not encourage anything.

> And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out 
> long after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, 
> Creative Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" 
> attribution for multiple sources this page: 
> https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28 Click on "Course Terms 
> of Use" to see a list of attributions.

well 4 c) says of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says:

> If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly 
> digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective 
> Works, _*You must keep intact all copyright notices*_ for the Work and 
> give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You 
> are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of 
> the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to 
> the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if 
> any, _*that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work*_


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190809/24b5d60b/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list