[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.02.2020 um 13:50 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> ...
> I acknowledge Kathleen Lu's recent remark about the ODbL being very
> clear on a derived product having to "contain" OSM in some way which
> would not be the case here; but I think this calls for working on ODbL
> 1.1 to rectify the issue, rather than sitting back and saying "uh, guess
> there's nothing we can do then".
> ...

IMHO the issue here is that we often, mistakenly, tend to treat "using"
OSM the same as "creating a derivative of OSM data".

As a thought experiment consider planning a trip around your fav place
boundary with OSM,  going for the walk with an OSM based map in your
hand so that you stay on course, and then writing a a blog post about
your experience. For the purpose of the argument forget about
substantial vs. non-substantial and Produced Works vs. Derivative Databases.

Is the blog post a derivative of OSM?

Simon



-------------- 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/20200219/9a0356a4/attachment-0001.sig>