<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnAbALa1e2vCCC2Br1aPA3=TFi1xBc0Wp0PJE+gML+_A8Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div>
            <div>So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone
              can sign up free. You should report it to Mapbox.<br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Nah, they stop replying me, they must have me on blacklist. Which
      goes a bit against their values "<strong>Be respectful and humble.</strong>
      To everyone — always." <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mapbox.com/about/values/">https://www.mapbox.com/about/values/</a><br>
    </p>
    <p>Speaking of them, seems their interpretation of ODbL is the same
      as mine:</p>
    <p>
      <blockquote type="cite">The <em>text attribution</em> contains at
        least three links: <a href="https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/"><code>©
            Mapbox</code></a>, <a
          href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/about/"><code>©
            OpenStreetMap</code></a> and <a
          href="https://www.mapbox.com/map-feedback/#/-74.5/40/10"><code>Improve
            this map</code></a>. This <u><b>attribution is strictly </b></u><u><b><em>required</em></b></u>
        when using the Mapbox Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's
        data source <a
          href="http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/">ODbL</a>
        license.</blockquote>
    </p>
    <p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/">https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/</a><br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnAbALa1e2vCCC2Br1aPA3=TFi1xBc0Wp0PJE+gML+_A8Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
              <p>About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using
                Altitude Angel (the company that omitted the attribution
                and runs <a
                  class="gmail-m_-849815243902098894moz-txt-link-freetext"
                  href="https://dronesafetymap.com/" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">https://dronesafetymap.com/</a>)
                and are now using Mapbox instead as you can see here <a
class="gmail-m_-849815243902098894moz-txt-link-freetext"
                  href="https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map"
                  target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map</a>
                Mapbox owns me a cup of tea for another client, oh well
                i can refuse that cup of tea for adding the attribution
                proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i
                think they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of
                proudly showing it. It's not about the data, it's what
                you do with it that matters and Mapbox does it well, but
                hiding the source is dirty.<br>
              </p>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can
          see from the map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use
          more than one data source?<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Yes, i do agree. Sounds like a good argument to remove the 50% of
      the guideline.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnAbALa1e2vCCC2Br1aPA3=TFi1xBc0Wp0PJE+gML+_A8Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div>That might be your opinion, but I think a court would
            disagree. Courts often look at norms in order to interpret a
            licence.<br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>This is the issue and feels like we are being abuse and pressured
      with the court/judge motive. When we shouldn't even go there but
      doing what's common sense. Maybe we should just switch to a public
      domain license, because that's what seems we have.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnAbALa1e2vCCC2Br1aPA3=TFi1xBc0Wp0PJE+gML+_A8Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> The objects don't say anything about
            strict attribution requirements. In fact, requirements that
            are too strict will *discourage* the "distribution of free
            geospatial data" by making it too difficult to use. That's
            the opposite of "providing geospatial data for anybody to
            use and share." <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Sure, i have send those concerns to the board. I don't see any
      difficulty to use it, you just need to attribute.<br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnAbALa1e2vCCC2Br1aPA3=TFi1xBc0Wp0PJE+gML+_A8Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div>Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it
            wrong since the beginning?  <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Well apparently we were tricked when we switched from CC to ODbL,
      judging by your opinion, we don't need this guidance or the
      copyright at all, with the argument of license doesn't say so. <br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnAbALa1e2vCCC2Br1aPA3=TFi1xBc0Wp0PJE+gML+_A8Q@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div>"You must keep intact" means don't delete them, not,
            "can't be a link". That last clause is "to the extent
            reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if
            any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the
            Work." In other words, include a link if the Licensor wants
            you to include a link! No one has suggested that the
            attribution should be only (c) OpenStreetMap with no link
            back to <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright"
              target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright</a></div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>So we are living in a lie since the beginning and dont need the
      attribution page at all. Please Board explain.<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>