[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Fri Mar 1 14:17:57 UTC 2019

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:51 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> ...
> What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular 
> with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this 
> conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this 
> resulting in gross inconsistencies.  And in a way it is understandable 
> if coporate data users use this as a basis to try to take this a step 
> further.
> ...

I would actually dispute the characterisation, there are two key
motivations behind the guidance we've given:

- practical considerations: for example taken verbatim the ODbL could be
read as requiring everybody that runs a minutely updated tile rendering
to the public as having to provide a copy of the database on a minutely
base to anybody that has seen their tiles and asks for it. This is
obviously silly and we've provided guidance saying that you don't
actually have to do that.

- clarifications due to the subject matter (aka geodata) and the
application of the ODbL to it: these mainly concern what is a produced
work and what isn't, what is a substantial extract and what isn't, and
the interactions with third party data (limitations of share alike on
third party data).

There are no guidelines that impact or weaken the application of the
ODbL wrt attribution of OSM, nor are is there any weakening of how the
ODbL applies to actual OSM data or derivatives.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190301/66c5f30d/attachment.sig>

More information about the talk mailing list