Hello!
I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
According to the wiki page[0]:
> Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".
> You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open
> Database Licence. This can be achieved by providing a "License" or "Terms"
> link which links to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or
> www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl.
>
> This credit needs to appear in a place reasonable to the medium you are
> utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the
> same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map
> supplier. Therefore:
>- For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile
> phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as
> commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps.
>- For a printed map, the credit should appear beside the map if that is
> where other such credits appear, and/or in the "acknowledgements" section of
> the publication (often at the start of a book or magazine).
Now, let's take a look at a few projects that use OSM and don't abide
by our own guidelines:
Facebook: I've seen some complaints over the course of the last year
regarding lack of attribution from the company. I decided to take a
look myself this year and was surprised, they actually attribute
OpenStreetMap, but not in the way described in the wiki page. On
desktop, there's an information button on the bottom-right corner of
the map, where the attribution should be, and when you click it
there's the attribution text. Note that the icon is barely visible and
I presume most people simply ignore it because it's barely
noticeable[1].
You may think "well, it's fine". Except it's not. On the mobile
version of the Facebook page, there's no attribution at all, simply a
map. And worse, it redirects to Google Maps when you click on it. I
brought this issue to the IRC channel #osm on OFTC and I was shocked
at the attitude of some members that "it was fine" and that Facebook's
attribution cannot be considered a case of "no attribution". I
disagree. If this is the position of the majority of the OSM
Foundation and members of the project, we have a problem, and I'll
explain below. Honestly, it seems to me that because Facebook is a
sponsor of the project, they can do attribution in whichever way
they'd like to, or even remove attribution, something like "I pay for
this project so its rules doesn't apply to me". And from what I've
gathered by my own research, it looks like the OSMF doesn't even care
about Facebook's lack of proper attribution.
Moovit:
The Moovit web app[2] on desktop has the correct attribution, there's
a small text box on the bottom-left corner including the attribution
text "(C) OpenStreetMap contributors". However, in their mobile app,
the attribution is hidden under 2-3 windows, requiring too much user
input to learn where the map and its data come from. This would be
okay for any other project, but it doesn't follow the guidelines
written on the wiki. Once again I brought this issue to the IRC
channel on OFTC, and I learned that the OSMF had already contacted
Moovit to fix their attribution. If I'm not mistaken, once again my
message was met with "hiding attribution is not a case of no
attribution".
I've read the LWG meeting minutes from both February 13 and March 12
this year and one particular topic caught my eye:
> 1-user interaction: suggestion from a company to have a side swipe for this,
> as this is what users are expecting. Maybe add a note to that effect.
Once again, contradicting the attribution guidelines as stated in the wiki.
I'd like to point out, why are the members of both the Foundation and
the OSM project being so passive about not having proper attribution
from projects? I've read on the IRC chat something on the lines of
"we're open data, we're not like google so we shouldn't care that much
about attribution". This is wrong.
Take a look at the most common licenses used for open source software;
they require proper attribution. Proprietary software isn't that much
different, when you install it, you need to accept a Terms of Service,
End User License Agreement or similar legal document. Take a look at
Google, if you use their Maps library or data, you NEED to attribute
it. Why does OpenStreetMap have to be different? When you decide to
use it for a project, you're agreeing to the license terms, and you're
expected to give proper credits to the project, as required by the
license.
This is a big deal. Part of the reason the myth that open source
licenses aren't legally binding is because people simply ignore their
product's license violations. Whenever someone violates the license
of a software, the company sues the person that violated the license.
The only difference here is that the user/developer violating the
license s
