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

Christoph Hormann osm at imagico.de
Mon Sep 9 14:34:12 UTC 2019


On Monday 09 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> >>> And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible
> >>> attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light'
> >>> liberty? As you drafted things it would be perfectly all right to
> >>> bury OSM attribution on the bottom of some general credits page
> >>> while prominently attributing some other source because this was
> >>> required while the OSMF settled for less.
> >>
> >> Where does the draft say that?
> >
> > The shoe is on the other foot - where does the guideline draft say
> > that the permission to show OSM attribution only on a separate page
> > under certain conditions depends on no other data source being
> > attributed more prominently?
>
> Why should it? There is no such requirement in the ODbL. I suspect
> you are confusing CC BY-SA attribution requirements with those of the
> ODbL.

Frankly Simon, this is now getting somewhat annoying.  I have asked as 
cited above:

> And what happens if one of the data sources has a hard visible
> attribution requirement without the OSMF 'attribution light'
> liberty?

The correct answer would have been:  It would according to the guideline 
in a <50 percent OSM data case be perfectly allowable to show the 
attribution for other sources (no matter what percentage they account 
for) in a form that is immediately visible without user interaction and 
to show OSM attribution "on a separate page that is visible after user 
interaction".

Instead of acknowledging that you deflect by first asking "Where does it 
say A" and then essentially asking "Why should it say NOT(A)" and 
finally accusing me of not understanding what i am talking about.

I don't really mind and can accept that but this is ultimately not a 
productive way to perform a community consultation like this.  This is 
not the LWG explaining the guideline as a done deal to 'confused' 
community members like me, this is about listening and taking seriously 
the concerns of the community, getting a broader perspective on matters 
and integrating the results of the ensuing arguments into the draft.  
Granted i have not made this easy with my emphatic rejection of the 
basic premises of the document.  I completely understand if you don't 
want to argue with me on that basis but if you do i expect to be taken 
seriously and my arguments being reasoned with and not being dismissed 
upfront as unqualified or confused.

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



More information about the talk mailing list