[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Sat Aug 10 00:31:39 UTC 2019


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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. src=
> "https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png"
> <https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png>
> 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.
>
> So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free. You
should report it to Mapbox.


> 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.
>
How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can see from the
map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use more than one data source?

>
> "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.
>
That might be your opinion, but I think a court would disagree. Courts
often look at norms in order to interpret a licence.


> 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:
>
> OBJECTS
>
> 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.
>
>  The objects don't say anything about strict attribution requirements. In
fact, requirements that are too strict will *discourage* the "distribution
of free geospatial data" by making it too difficult to use. That's the
opposite of "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.
>
Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since the
beginning?


> 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*
>
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
>
"You must keep intact" means don't delete them, not, "can't be a link".
That last clause is "to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform
Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with
the Work." In other words, include a link if the Licensor wants you to
include a link! No one has suggested that the attribution should be only
(c) OpenStreetMap with no link back to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190809/cf74174c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list