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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Sep 9 11:10:17 UTC 2019

Am 09.09.2019 um 12:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann:

> 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). 

That statement is completely wrong. What is correct is that the
limitation of such extracts to country size is rather arbitrary, but
that was erring on the side of caution because at increasing smaller
sizes you start getting in to issues with if the resulting extract is
still a database in its own right. But there is nothing at all in the
ODbL that wouldn't in principle allow smaller extracts to be used in
collective databases.

>  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.

There is no requirement to publish derivative databases, only a
requirement to make them available to recipients of such databases and
Produced Works created from them.

> 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.

It doesn't change the license at all, in general the guidance is more
-strict- than current practice, with the exception of the multiple
source case where there currently isn't any guidance at all.


-------------- 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/20190909/3f61fee0/attachment.sig>

More information about the talk mailing list