[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Sep 9 08:02:20 UTC 2019

Am 09.09.2019 um 02:03 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> In the case of 10 sources with ODbL attribution requirements, I would
> still prefer that (c)Openstreetmap be included on the rendering,
> because this is the only ODbL project that is totally free and open
> and created by individual volunteers, as far as I am aware.
> Government-created databases have already been paid for by taxpayers,
> and will not stop existing if no one knows about them. But
> Openstreetmap needs new contributors, so we need people to know that
> we exist.

I fully agree with the above, but it is not a legal argument that can be
used in interpreting the consequences and requirements of our
distribution licence.

And may I add, requiring grossly inaccurate attribution doesn't actually
help with any of our issues.

> However, as I mentioned above, I'm fine with providing a link to ALL
> copyright and attribution notices, when it's physically impossible to
> attribute them all properly due to limited space.
The draft guideline doesn't say anything else. It simply tries to
address the edge case where there is limited space and OSM is not the
dominant data source and attributing everything to OSM would be
confusing and inappropriate.
> This means that there can't be a "facebook" or "Mapbox" logo on the
> map: just a link "copyright attribution" or "data sources" (or "i" if
> it's a tiny 100x100 pixel map) - ideally this would pop up without
> needing to click, if it's online.
> If the map renderer wants to include their logo, then they must
> include (c)Openstreetmap as well (or perhaps (c)OSM if it's a tiny
> 200*200 pixel / 2cm*2cm map and their own logo is tiny)
> If the map renderer wants to include a link to their website or any
> other website on the online or rendered map, then they have to include
> a link to Openstreetmap.org. Full stop.
> Please provide a practical real-world example where these requirements
> are impossible to meet, if I'm mistaken.

Kathleen has already touched on this, but one more time. In general the
guidelines work as safe harbours, that is if somebody follows the
guidelines in good faith they can assume that they are doing something
we're reasonably happy with. That does not mean that the guidelines
change the licence and that attribution solutions that do not conform to
our guidelines would automatically be licence violations. In a legal
conflict, while our guidelines would surely be considered, if they are
loaded with restrictions that are not actually present and founded in
the licence they would likely not hold much weight.

For example Facebooks f logo is small and very well recognized, making
how -OSM- should be attributed dependent on if the f logo is present or
not, would be, IMHO, very contrived as it has no bearing on if
attribution as required by the licence can be provided or not. I should
note that this is a hypothetical, Facebook doesn't display a logo on the
small inset maps nor on the larger popup maps on their website.


> - Joseph Eisenberg
> On 9/9/19, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>> To illustrate where this discussion has gone awry please consider a
>> rendering using 10 data sources all licensed on ODbL terms (in real life
>> it is not uncommon to have multiple dozens of different sources, so 10
>> is not a high number).  The ODbL does not, nor does any other open
>> licence, intend for such a product not to be possible because of the
>> practicalities of  providing simultaneously visible attribution of all
>> sources all the time.

-------------- 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/20190909/8dbb6c84/attachment.sig>

More information about the talk mailing list