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:
>
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: ©
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
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
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
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.
About my signature, i apologise as i have written the email on a webclient
that contains that signature. ADMIN please remove the
6 matches
Mail list logo
