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

[Christoph Hormann]

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 
those.

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 
project.

> > [...] 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 
license requires?

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 
data users.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/