[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Sat Aug 10 09:27:33 UTC 2019

> So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free. 
> You should report it to Mapbox.

Nah, they stop replying me, they must have me on blacklist. Which goes a 
bit against their values "*Be respectful and humble.* To everyone — 
always." https://www.mapbox.com/about/values/

Speaking of them, seems their interpretation of ODbL is the same as mine:

> The /text attribution/ contains at least three links: |© Mapbox| 
> <https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/>, |© OpenStreetMap| 
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/about/> and |Improve this map| 
> <https://www.mapbox.com/map-feedback/#/-74.5/40/10>. This 
> _*attribution is strictly *__*/required/*_ when using the Mapbox 
> Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source ODbL 
> <http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/> license.


>     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?

Yes, i do agree. Sounds like a good argument to remove the 50% of the 

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

This is the issue and feels like we are being abuse and pressured with 
the court/judge motive. When we shouldn't even go there but doing what's 
common sense. Maybe we should just switch to a public domain license, 
because that's what seems we have.

>  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."

Sure, i have send those concerns to the board. I don't see any 
difficulty to use it, you just need to attribute.

> Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since 
> the beginning?

Well apparently we were tricked when we switched from CC to ODbL, 
judging by your opinion, we don't need this guidance or the copyright at 
all, with the argument of license doesn't say so.

> "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

So we are living in a lie since the beginning and dont need the 
attribution page at all. Please Board explain.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190810/2b796f78/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the talk mailing list