[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline update

Wed Feb 19 14:58:42 UTC 2020

There is a difference (a very big one), between saying "if you do X we
believe you are fulfilling the requirements of the licence" and saying
"you need to do Y to make us happy, even if it doesn't have any founding
in the licence". And that has nothing to do with winning court cases,
but all with staying true to the 6 million plus agreements the OSMF has
with OSM contributors, or put differently: behaving ethically ourselves.

Simon

Am 19.02.2020 um 15:51 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> If the map says "Copyright BoxMap, imagery copyright IRSE" in bold in
> the right corner, but the Openstreetmap notice is hidden behind a tiny
> "i" or ony shown briefly on app startup (which only happens after your
> phone crashes or the app updates), then this gives the impression that
> the data is also from BoxMap and IRSE. That is false attribution.
>
>>  "we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you are providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence"
> Right, and this is our guideline which means "we won't sue you if you
> follow these steps." It is perfectly reasonable to request things that
> are the ethical and common-sensically "right way to do it" even if we
> can't win a court verdict in London or New York or wherever. As the
> guideline states, we are not claiming to have determined the legal
> status in any particular country.
>
> There is nothing wrong about requesting specific attribution details
> which are not mentioned in the license. You certainly know that the
> guidelines are much more specific than the license already, mainly in
> the many exceptions to the normal attribution requirements which the
> draft is allowing. We can also add more specific requirements and
> trust that most database users will do their best to follow them.
>
>> I would suggest reading https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward Copyleft Equality for All".
> That article is unintelligible to me. Too many jargon terms. But I
> will note that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, whether you use
> it to argue for stronger or weaker license enforcement and terms.
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 2/19/20, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>> Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>>>> IMHO attribution should always be required  1. on the map 2. in high
>>>> contrast
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most
>>> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to
>>> provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app
>>> startup with a short "splash" screen:
>> Providing attribution on splash screen is an obvious and widely accepted
>> way of attribution completely independently of the guideline we are
>> discussing here.
>>> I think there should be a statement in the guideline that
>>> Openstreetmap attribution must not be inferior to attribution of other
>>> data sources or the map designer. That is, if the app logo or aerial
>>> imagery copyright is shown, then Openstreetmap must also be shown at
>>> the same time. If Openstreetmap is relegated to a separate splash page
>>> or linked page, the other copyright/logo features must also be on that
>>> page.
>> The licence does not stipulate any relative criteria for attribution wrt
>> UI elements, other attribution or anything else on the screen. Adding
>> such a requirement would break the open definitions requirement that all
>> terms for use of the content be defined in the licence. Obviously there
>> is a fine line there that we try not to cross with this guideline, in
>> that we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you
>> are providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence (note
>> this not new, the problem is inherent in giving any guidance wrt any
>> effect of the licence).
>>
>>> We should not give up on enforcing basic ethical behavior from
>>> corporations. Everyone who has been to school knows that copying
>>> without attribution is plagarism, and putting your logo on the front
>>> makes it look like plagarism if Openstreetmap is relegated to a
>>> non-visible page.
>> Again, enforcing ethical behaviour is outside of the scope of open data
>> licensing, at least in the definition that is used in our contributor
>> terms (and which in practical terms is immutable).
>>
>> There is currently a lot of discussion on this topic in the OSS
>> communities, but just to illustrate the kind of slippery slope you are
>> venturing on to, I would suggest reading
>> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward Copyleft Equality
>> for All".
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>> - Joseph M Eisenberg
>>> (Hobbiest mapper from USA in Indonesia, volunteer contributor to the
>>> Openstreetmap Carto map style. I have no financial or professional
>>> interest or conflict.)
>>>
>>> On 2/19/20, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
>>>> frederik at remote.org>:
>>>>
>>>>>> Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate
>>>>>> wishlist
>>>>>> items into the guideline are all still there - like the 10000 m^2 map
>>>>>> area limit that has been conjured out of thin air
>>>>> True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area
>>>>> of
>>>>> up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I
>>>>> don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be
>>>>> *friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in
>>>>> densely populated urban areas.
>>>>
>>>> I guess 10k sqm will be a stronger requirement (almost) everywhere, for
>>>> example look at Manhattan, maybe not the densest place on earth, but
>>>> surely
>>>> one of the densers. With roughly 27500 inhabitants per sqkm, on the
>>>> average
>>>> 100x100m NYC patch there will only be 275 inhabitants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I stumbled upon the small maps section.
>>>> __
>>>> The following maps are each considered small:
>>>>
>>>>    - The map takes up less than 25% of the displayed window, or
>>>>    - The map is of less than 500 device-independent pixels horizontally.
>>>>
>>>> Small maps may have attribution after one interaction. Examples of one
>>>> interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or link that opens a
>>>> pop-up or new webpage that displays attribution, or a mouseover, swipe,
>>>> drag, pinch, etc.
>>>> __
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the reason for not requiring attribution _on the map_ the limited
>>>> space? Why is there a condition that makes (easily visible) attribution
>>>> not
>>>> mandatory for extremely large screens? There is a development from
>>>> several
>>>> screens to large screens, and pixel density is generally growing, so the
>>>> "max 25% of the displayed window is a map" condition doesn't seem
>>>> reasonable. IMHO attribution should always be required
>>>>
>>>> 1. on the map
>>>> 2. in high contrast
>>>>
>>>> (3. in a lower corner, left or right)
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about
>>>> points
>>>> (i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we
>>>> should require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine
>>>> whether the attribution string will be readable --- and the requirement
>>>> should be tougher. We have seen many examples of easily readable,
>>>> unobtrusive attribution on much smaller maps. For example the osm.org
>>>> website on 467 pixels wide has room for a scale bar and this text: "©
>>>> OpenStreetMap contributors # Make a Donation. Website and API terms" in
>>>> a
>>>> single line.
>>>>
>>>> The actual requirement for "© OpenStreetMap contributors" is around 163
>>>> pixels. My suggestion would be to make this half: 250 pixels, maybe even
>>>> less like 200 (theoretical) pixels for retina screens (i.e. 400 actual
>>>> pixels on retina at 2x and 600 actual pixels on retina at 3x).
>>>> Our goal is not to avoid attribution but to show it when it can
>>>> reasonably
>>>> be done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, if you train your AI black box with OSM data then
>>>>> everything that comes out of your AI black box later is a derived work
>>>>> and must come under the ODbL.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>

-------------- 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/20200219/3e8f23b4/attachment-0001.sig>