[OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Tue Jun 11 22:38:44 UTC 2019
Christoph i have well documented them and sent them to Facebook via
email on October the 10th 2018 after receiving their reply on the 9th of
October of my initial email on the 10th of September 2018. On December
the 6th 2018 i asked what was the status or a reply to my email on the
10th of October, they never replied to those two emails, guess my
"suggestions" weren't valued. I can share these emails publicly as *.eml
if you doubt as see the screenshots of examples i sent.
Here's Facebook reply to my email on the 9th of October 2018:
> Hello Nuno,
> Thank for bringing this up. This was going to a legal review because
> we take community suggestions very seriously and we’ve looked into the
> issues you’ve raised. We don’t currently have attribution on the map
> “previews” as the map in preview form isn’t very informative and the
> intent is that users will click into the experience to actually make
> use of the map. Once a user clicks on the map, the attribution
> experience is readily available. I believe that this is the approach
> taken by many services which offer a map feature.
> With respect to the use of the “i” indicating attribution, we
> understand that may others in the industry have adopted a similar
> approach –most likely to address the limited map real estate and the
> multiple sources of attribution. We believe that it’s common
> knowledge that additional information, including license information
> related to the mapping feature, can be accessed by clicking the “i.”
> This appears to be common industry practice and reasonably calculated
> to make users aware that OSM is a contributor of a map.
> Again, we thank you for your suggestions, and we value our partnership
> with the OSM community.
> Drishtie Patel on behalf of the OSM Maps Team at Facebook
So their believe is /"map "previews" as the map in preview form isn't
very informative"/. Well if it isn't do not use it on the first place.
ODbL is clear, "any Person that uses, _views_", i do not have to
interact with to acknowledge the notice.
"we understand that may others in the industry have adopted a similar
approach" so all others are doing it wrong, we are entitled to do so.
That's why lack of attribution is becoming more and more often, because
of this kind of thought.
They do value partnership but not comply with 4.3 of ODbL and OSMF on
the license and attribution.
Their legal review is almost 9 months old and from the lack of
compliance, wonder what it was.
How many map view has facebook per day of OSM data? How many Facebook
users could have been aware of what OpenStreetMap is? How many new
contributors could have join OSM?
We must not allow this kind of behaviour, interpretation of ODbL and
especially have corporate members that have this kind of behaviour.
Às 09:38 de 10/06/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
> On Monday 10 June 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>> As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the
>>> influence the OSM community has in principle. It is certainly much
>>> larger than that of the OSMF. It might be convenient to just say
>>> "we can't do anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly
>>> tries to cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable
>>> but that is definitely not the case.
>> Can you propose anything specific that for example I can do,?
> In general raising public awareness is one of the most efficient
> measures about this kind of thing. We have for example so far not even
> a proper documentation of the various situations in which Facebook
> shows OSM based maps to their users without proper attribution.
> Once this exists a good next step would be to approach business partners
> of Facebook, in particular ones who are interested and depend on having
> a good relationship with OSM and publicly ask them (via Twitter for
> example) why they are cooperating with a company that systematically
> violates the OSM license.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk