[OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 15:15:29 UTC 2019


I apologize for the signature (my mistake) and asked for the mailing 
list admin to remove it.

This is not a matter on how the attribution must be made, like we 
discussed before in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-February/082136.html, 
it's them not attributing at all.

OSMF is the licensor, as written of 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

> OSMF's role as Licensor and publisher of the database

I have asked Facebook (as a contributor) several times to comply with 
our guidelines and they stopped replying and did not add the attribution 
over the last six months.

As we have moved from CC to ODbL i assume OSMF as the licensor has the 
right and in my opinion must notify the violation of 4.3 under 9.4 c) as 
they just keep ignoring adding the attribution as requested on  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

> We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”. 
They do not fit under substantial concept: 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

> The OpenStreetMap community regards the following as being not 
> Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the 
> extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a 
> similar project.
>
>   * Less than 100 Features.
>   * More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic
>     and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an
>     extract of all the the locations of restaurants you have visited
>     for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of a
>     selection of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are
>     writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. The systematic
>     extraction of all eating places within an area or at all castles
>     within an area would be considered to be systematic.
>   * The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which
>     can be a small densely populated area such as a European village
>     or can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of
>     the Australian bush with few Features.
>
> Note also that we regard*repeated small extractions as one big 
> extraction*!
>


Às 15:39 de 09/06/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:
>
> 9 Jun 2019, 13:08 by nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com:
>
> I support efforts to stop large scale violation of OSM license by 
> Facebook.
>
> Note
> "You must include a notice associated with
> the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
> Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
> is available under this License."
>
> in https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
> that is clearly violated, nearly noone using FB is made aware
> that maps are powered by OSM data.
>
> But this attempt is a bit substandard
>
>     I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
>     Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their
>     rights under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of
>     notice. as written on ODbL.
>     https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
>
> Unfortunately, as far as I know, it is OSMF that must produce this 
> notice (I may be mistaken here).
>
> Also, can you consider not including such footer notices in emails 
> posted on a public mailing list?
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190609/456b892e/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list