[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
simon at poole.ch
Fri Mar 1 23:39:09 UTC 2019
Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller:
> I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our
> attribution guidance.
> IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST!
The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops people from providing
better attribution (again old example: on map attribution vs. a
paragraph underneath). Any guidance should, IMHO, just lay down the
rules for the minimal acceptable attribution but not limit how that can
be improved on.
> P.S. I really would like to collect once in another thread the hidden
> agendas behind those
> * argueing against proper attribution of OSM (why trying to hide to
> mention OSM?),
> * calling shame license violators "shenanigans" (so there are violators?),
> * questioning the legal status of OSMF (why spreading FUD?)
> Am Fr., 1. März 2019 um 22:55 Uhr schrieb Tomas Straupis
> <tomasstraupis at gmail.com>:
>> 2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė:
>>> As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got
>>> paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private
>>> investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that
>>> isn't even the same sport. You give first rate attribution to OSM and
>>> second rate attribution to everything else.
>> How/why is the financing of data source part relevant?
>> How would you calculate the prominence of data source to split them
>> into "displayed by default" and "displayed after pressing 'data
>> While for data visualisations you could calculate number of objects
>> displayed, what would you do for maps and especially thematic maps?
>> The latter two would have a specific target group with specific
>> interests and a specific idea/information to be communicated which
>> could take a smaller area of the map. A thematic map of X with a
>> basemap of Y could have visually most part covered by Y, but most
>> important part of such a map is X.
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the talk