[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update
osm at imagico.de
Mon Sep 9 12:14:03 UTC 2019
On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> 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. [...]
I disagree. And in any case - it does not matter, the regional cuts
were used just as an example. I could likewise have used the
horizontal layers as an example in my argument. And surely you could
for those equally present an interpretation of the ODbL that justifies
My point is not that you cannot interpret the ODbL in a way that allows
all this. This is what corporate lawyers do and what they are good at.
My point is that within the spectrum of possible interpretations of the
ODbL all of this is on the far side of leniency and the OSMF - w.r.t.
share-alike - has already moved their frame of refrence of what is the
appropriate/neutral interpretation very far in that direction.
And i strongly advise you not to do the same for attribution because you
are playing with fire here regarding the social cohesion of the
> > [...] 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.
So your argument is that using derivative databases is common practice
and map producers routinely make them available to the users of their
maps. But none of this is visible in public because the recipients do
not distribute them despite them being available under the ODbL as the
I am not convinced.
For clarity i repeat and clarify my statement: Share-alike is
functionally dead in the world of commercial OSM map rendering. Map
producers universally route around it - or at least claim to route
around it and their claims are not challenged. If you disagree then
show me the derivative databases.
> 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.
So you are essentially saying that commercial OSM data users with their
blatant ignorance of the requirements of the license have successfully
moved what is considered normal in the eyes of the OSMF so they have
adjusted their own frame of reference for what they may expect from
More information about the talk