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

Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
Sat Mar 2 15:13:12 UTC 2019


Hi,

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 02:05:44PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 2, 2019, 12:19 PM by f at zz.de:
> 
> > Yes - we talk nicely - but in
> > the end nobody is willing to drag them to court. And THAT was the first
> > question i had when we talked about relicensing.
>
> There is a big gap between polite (and easily ignorable) messages and court.
> 
> Have OSMF ever send a DMCA to somebody?

In most jurisdications licensing and trade marks will only hold up
when defended or enforced in court. Once you stop doing so you
might loose your protection.

So when relicensing the ultimate consequence is that you need to defend
your license - and thats was my first question. Is the OSMF willing
to enforce the license?

I had my doubts that the ODbL will be enforced against companys who
are not only data consumers but also contributers and sponsors.

In the end the fear of displease our big sponsors by dragging them
to court is bigger than the annoyance of those consumers not
attributing to us in a form acceptable. 

In the end i see exactly that happing right now. 

And we as mappers, contributers have lost a lot of freedom with the
relicensing - and the gain was marginal. Now we are in the situation 
that the big consumers may push us around as they like as the OSMF 
is not willing to defend our rights which we passed on to them 
with the CT. Just pay some bills of the OSMF, SoTM, OSM Operations
and suddenly you'll be pretty safe against ODbL violations.

I was disappointed with the relicensing as i didnt see any reason to 
do so. And i am disappointed by the paper tiger the OSMF is.

I am still a big fan of PD/CC0 but taken all the side effects of the
ODbL the least thing i want is that the marginal gains we might have
with this license will be taken serious and be enforced by the OSMF.

Violations are going on for years now and every couple months somebody
asks for clarification and the outcome is always nil.

So i fail to see anyone to enforcing the ODbL. So why did we do the
relicensing in the first place?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190302/58772e74/attachment.sig>


More information about the talk mailing list