[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Phil Wyatt]

Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
To: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Béland <pierzenh at yahoo.fr>; OSMF Talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>; OpenStreetMap talk mailing list <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way of a fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne

 

On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 
 
sent from a phone
 

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  <mailto:nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com> <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com> wrote:
 
@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever acknowledge.

 
 
I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do add attribution when pointed to attribution issues. 
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.
 
Cheers Martin 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191223/b7dd942f/attachment.html>