[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Christoph Hormann
osm at imagico.de
Mon Sep 9 10:08:35 UTC 2019
On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> 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.
I am sorry but no, that is a complete distortion of the previous
discussion. I have been the one who called for guidelines which err on
the side of caution and make recommendations for how data users can be
sure they safely meet the license requirements. Kathleen has rejected
this approach by painting in dark colors various perceived
disadvantages should the guidelines suggest anything that might not
absolutely be necessary from the ODbL itself.
Existing guidelines allow a lot of things that are clearly not allowed
by the ODbL itself in terms of share-alike (like the regional cuts
concept for example). They are clearly designed to err on the side of
leniency for the data users. This has been largely accepted by the
community because it waives rights the OSMF would have under the ODbL
in cases where insisting on them would have relatively little benefit
for the project itself (although you could of course still argue that
there would be benefit for the open geodata community in general). But
as a result today share-alike in the ODbL is essentially functionally
dead. There are still cases where share-alike is clearly required but
almost everyone routes around them. If you disagree please list cases
where commercial OSM data users have published derivative databases.
Commercial data users (and i am unfairly generalizing here of course)
have been answering this extreme generosity in a "Gib jemandem den
kleinen Finger und er nimmt die ganze Hand" kind of way when it comes
to attribution in particular. That is to be expected from
organizations whose main objective is to maximize short term profits at
all costs. You can be certain that the same approach will be taken
with an attribution guideline. Any loophole in the suggestions
presented will be examined for the potential advantages it gives in the
most excessive possible interpretation of the text.
This is why i am strongly opposing the current draft because it pokes
additional holes into the license while what it should do is putting a
sign on aspects that might be perceived to be loopholes in the license
itself with a clear message of: Here the safe terrain ends, we strongly
suggest you don't go there if you don't want to get in legal trouble or
potentially face the wrath of hundreds of thousands of OSM contributors
and supporters.
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
More information about the talk
mailing list