[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sat Aug 10 07:22:23 UTC 2019


I'm just an individual mapper who would like more people to be aware
of Openstreetmap. I'm not a professional cartographer, nor do I have
any ties to any map providers.

My concern right now is that most of my friends and family are
completely unaware of the existence of Openstreetmap, even though our
data is powering many of the maps on their cell phones and many
website.

It's even hard to recommend apps like Maps.me when they don't
attribute Openstreetmap, instead putting their own logo in the lower
right corner.

If people don't know that OSM is the source of the data in a map, they
won't know how to get involved to improve it.

However the license wording is changed, the OSMF needs to convince
Mapbox and company to start actually attributing Openstreetmap in all
views, especially on mobile apps and platforms that the majority of
users see.

There shouldn't be exceptions which hide the Openstreetmap name.

This isn't a matter of pride, it's a matter of whether Openstreetmap
will grow and be recognized as an important source of geodata which
people ought to get involved in improving.

Joseph Eisenberg
Wamena, Indonesia

On 8/10/19, Kathleen Lu via talk <talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 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
>



More information about the talk mailing list