[OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Thu Jun 13 10:12:59 UTC 2019


Martin, i obviously agree about the usage of usage data, that's the point
of OpenStreetMap. Makes me proud to see it being used more and more as an
alternative of Google. But the license has requirements that must be
fulfill.

I know they are already in breach, however as pointed on 9.4 c), the
licensor (OSMF) must notify them to be considered permanetly terminated.
they are not complying with the license neither with the guidelines that
OSMF have set and made public. When we adopted ODbL, im sure 9.4 c) was
evaluated,despite you mentioning its not OSMF duty to pursue license
violations, however OSMF is the licensor and ODbL mentions the Licensor can
permanently terminate the license. As I, as a contributor have requested
multiple times, pointed out the copyright page, the license and the
guidelines as they keep ignoring, this is the only solution for them to
have their license permanetly terminated, unless they comply in 30 days
after being notified.

A quarta, 12/06/2019, 12:02, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
escreveu:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9. Jun 2019, at 15:45, Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >.
> > As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to
> comply. They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing
> this on the mailing list.
>
>
> I guess you are expecting a reply from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation
> board of directors or them publicly taking a position? Because this is
> the n+1th time that unsatisfactory attribution (or completely missing
> in the case of mini maps) by Facebook is raised here, and AFAIR there
> was never an official statement by the board (members of the board may
> have replied individually and with personal statements). I would
> really welcome a clear statement from board, or at least one that
> explains that board members have different opinions on this, or why it
> takes them so long to say anything about it.
>
> People have contributed to OSM under the Contributor Terms, where OSMF
> acknowledged they would only distribute the data under the ODbL or
> another free and open license chosen by the active contributors. Not
> pursuing license violations (and not even attempting to do anything
> against it) is against the spirit of the whole license idea and raises
> questions about the validity of the Contributor Terms agreement.
>
> As you have cited, for the abusers the situation is defined in the
> license text, "9.0 Termination of Your rights under this License", and
> by using the OSM data without attribution (as confirmed also by
> Facebook in the email you have shared), their license is already
> terminated, no notification necessary ("9.1 Any breach by You of the
> terms and conditions of this License automatically terminates this
> License with immediate effect and without notice to You.").
> On the other hand, I believe most of us are not interested in
> terminating the use of our data by them, we are happy for everyone
> using it, it is the purpose of the project to create useful data. What
> we want is simply the required attribution. Noone can use a
> substantial part of the db without giving attribution.
>
> In some way it is also in the interest of any of our data users that
> there is attribution to OSM, because if the OSM community grows, it
> will result in more accurate and up to date map data.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190613/c101eee1/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list