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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23 Dec 2019, 19:59 by matkoniecz at tutanota.com:

>
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 17:59 by joost.schouppe at gmail.com:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook        company (via Mapbox), Snapchat that is using OSM without        attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty of space for a        reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text). They        probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply        over a year ago, nor have agreed with the license in every        aspect of it when stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or        Mapbox been informed on these repeated offenders, nor read the        multiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had a employee        that ran for OSMF board.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://map.snapchat.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend        nothing is going on for over a year with these two companies        that are corporate members of OSMF and should be the first ones        to give examples. Enough with excuses. 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't think Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>>
>> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>>
> It is quite hard to find place where one
> may report this kind of info using email.
>
> I used > press at snap.com>  - is anyone aware 
> of any better email address for this kind of reports?
>
I also complained at 

https://support.mapbox.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=360000308212

My request was assigned id 77032
according to the automated email.

Has anyone who complained about
Snapchat to Mapbox can check their
inbox archive and share the request id?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191224/defb25d9/attachment-0001.html>