[OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Dec 9 14:13:38 UTC 2020


Am 08.12.2020 um 18:36 schrieb Rory McCann:
> Yes, fundamentally, you're 100% correct. The ODbL licence is the thing that matters when it comes to what's legally required. And that says nothing about “device independent pixels” or “javascript popup clicks”, it only refers to the mental state of someone.
>
> The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on data protection (Art. 8) is only about 80 words long  (DE 73, EN 82, GA 101), but the GDPR that implements it is 55,000 words long. I view the ODbL as like our “constitution” for what you can do with the data.

This analogy is clearly wrong. If anything at all, the contributor terms 
would be the constitution, the ODbL is just one of many possible ways 
the constitutional requirements could be implemented, and, if you so 
want, the guidance published by the OSMF are the ordinances that cover 
details and fix issues that the law makers didn't foresee or which are 
simply mistakes.

> It will be short, but for practical real word answers you need laws & court cases which expand on it. One can always challenge a law for violating a constituation limit or requirement, and it should be the same with the ODbL & the OSMF's Attribution Guidelines.

But outside of the realm of not really fitting analogies, there is a 
reason why in many modern states the constitution and laws evolve, 
because the world and the circumstances in which the rules are applied 
change over time, and wise governing bodies adapt their rule book to 
changing reality. The ODbL was formulated as a generic database licence, 
independent of the subject matter and without the more than a decade 
experience with actual use cases that we have now, many of which were 
not considered at the time.

We can take a pragmatic approach to this, which was the practice over 
the last 10 years and undoubtably one of the reasons OSM has become such 
a thriving success, we can formally revise the law (one of the LWG 
proposals for getting out of the quagmire in a democratic fashion that 
wasn't responded to), or we can tie ourselves to yesteryears fights with 
overly literal reading of the rules without taking change in to account.

Naturally people tend to only be literal when it serves their specific 
political aims and allow them to maximize hubris and strife, and not 
when not. Maybe I should just be literal about the contributor terms and 
bring OSM to a screeching halt for effect.

Simon

>
> So I think there's a lot of benefit in writing out, in my more detail, how you can follow §4.3, rather than speaking in generalities.
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 00:08, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>>
>>> Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org> hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben:
>>>
>>> But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution where someone could argue that they meet this standard.
>> As i have already explained to you in
>>
>> http://blog.imagico.de/the-osmf-changes-during-the-past-year-and-what-they-mean-for-the-coming-years-part-2/#comment-141145
>>
>> the opposite is the case - the advise as formulated precisely explains
>> the criterion for valid attribution.
>>
>> Attribution has the purpose to be perceived by humans.  To determine if
>> a certain form of attribution is acceptable you have to look at the
>> effect it has on human perception while interacting with the produced
>> work.
>>
>> It is understandable that to people with a primarily technical
>> background this very concept appears uncomfortable and hard to grasp
>> and their reflex is to substitute this with something purely technical
>> where you can essentially program a test to verify if the attribution
>> is OK independent of the human user.  That cannot work.
>>
>> -- 
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20201209/a24432bb/attachment.sig>


More information about the talk mailing list