Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )
Martin, i obviously agree about the usage of usage data, that's the point of OpenStreetMap. Makes me proud to see it being used more and more as an alternative of Google. But the license has requirements that must be fulfill. I know they are already in breach, however as pointed on 9.4 c), the licensor (OSMF) must notify them to be considered permanetly terminated. they are not complying with the license neither with the guidelines that OSMF have set and made public. When we adopted ODbL, im sure 9.4 c) was evaluated,despite you mentioning its not OSMF duty to pursue license violations, however OSMF is the licensor and ODbL mentions the Licensor can permanently terminate the license. As I, as a contributor have requested multiple times, pointed out the copyright page, the license and the guidelines as they keep ignoring, this is the only solution for them to have their license permanetly terminated, unless they comply in 30 days after being notified. A quarta, 12/06/2019, 12:02, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu: > sent from a phone > > > On 9. Jun 2019, at 15:45, Nuno Caldeira > wrote: > >. > > As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to > comply. They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing > this on the mailing list. > > > I guess you are expecting a reply from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation > board of directors or them publicly taking a position? Because this is > the n+1th time that unsatisfactory attribution (or completely missing > in the case of mini maps) by Facebook is raised here, and AFAIR there > was never an official statement by the board (members of the board may > have replied individually and with personal statements). I would > really welcome a clear statement from board, or at least one that > explains that board members have different opinions on this, or why it > takes them so long to say anything about it. > > People have contributed to OSM under the Contributor Terms, where OSMF > acknowledged they would only distribute the data under the ODbL or > another free and open license chosen by the active contributors. Not > pursuing license violations (and not even attempting to do anything > against it) is against the spirit of the whole license idea and raises > questions about the validity of the Contributor Terms agreement. > > As you have cited, for the abusers the situation is defined in the > license text, "9.0 Termination of Your rights under this License", and > by using the OSM data without attribution (as confirmed also by > Facebook in the email you have shared), their license is already > terminated, no notification necessary ("9.1 Any breach by You of the > terms and conditions of this License automatically terminates this > License with immediate effect and without notice to You."). > On the other hand, I believe most of us are not interested in > terminating the use of our data by them, we are happy for everyone > using it, it is the purpose of the project to create useful data. What > we want is simply the required attribution. Noone can use a > substantial part of the db without giving attribution. > > In some way it is also in the interest of any of our data users that > there is attribution to OSM, because if the OSM community grows, it > will result in more accurate and up to date map data. > > Cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira wrote: > [...] OSMF is the licensor [...] > Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not get their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. Mapbox got their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their OSM derivative database and produced works as vector tiles and static map images via their APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the responsibility of Mapbox to notify Facebook that FB is not in compliance with the ODbL. However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF bypassing Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a valid legal avenue to pursue attribution violations. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )
Eugene I already pointed that to Mapbox that some of their clients are not complying with ODbL and even their terms of service. They didn't reply either. Mapbox TOS https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/ Text attribution The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap and Improve this map. This attribution is strictly required when using the Mapbox Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source ODbL license. Some other Mapbox-provided tilesets require additional attribution which is stored in the TileJSON of the tileset. When do you have to provide attribution? Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both the Mapbox wordmark and text attribution. This includes: Maps using a Mapbox template style such as Mapbox Streets, Mapbox Outdoors or Mapbox Light, or a style derived from those styles. Maps using a Mapbox tileset, such as Mapbox Streets, Mapbox Terrain, and Mapbox Satellite. You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style or custom data hosted by Mapbox. (This is the case for most maps built with Mapbox Studio.) If you do not use Mapbox designs or data supplied by Mapbox, you may omit text attribution. If your map does not use Mapbox designs, data, hosting, or other Mapbox APIs, Mapbox does not require you to provide attribution in either form. A quinta, 13/06/2019, 18:10, Eugene Alvin Villar escreveu: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira < > nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [...] OSMF is the licensor [...] >> > > Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not get > their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. Mapbox got > their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their OSM derivative > database and produced works as vector tiles and static map images via their > APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the responsibility of Mapbox to > notify Facebook that FB is not in compliance with the ODbL. > > However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF bypassing > Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a valid legal > avenue to pursue attribution violations. > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )
The ODbL (like for example the CC licences too) does not allow sub-licencing and stipulates that every licensee is licensed directly by the OSMF. Am 13.06.2019 um 19:10 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira > mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > [...] OSMF is the licensor [...] > > > Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not > get their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. > Mapbox got their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their > OSM derivative database and produced works as vector tiles and static > map images via their APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the > responsibility of Mapbox to notify Facebook that FB is not in > compliance with the ODbL. > > However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF > bypassing Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a > valid legal avenue to pursue attribution violations. > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk