Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

+0100 From: Nuno Caldeira To: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution Message-ID: <90ec38e5-46e3-2d41-e50a-78e7db1a3...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Months go by nothing happens. he

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Yes it is and  when they reply: The Livestream Platform does not utilize the Open Street Map site or any of the data that you're referring to. We have always used another mapping service to integrate locations within our event and have no ties to OpenStreetMap. And then you send a OSM History

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

It's kind of funny when people deny osm data as it has it's own sort flavour that differentiates it from google, bing, here, etc. It's instantly recognizable. On Tue., Jul. 23, 2019, 6:43 p.m. Nuno Caldeira, < nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote: > Months go by nothing happens. here's another

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Months go by nothing happens. here's another example from LiveStream, a Vimeo service.They have a map (example, press "i" https://livestream.com/accounts/23202872/events/7200883 ) , asked to add the attribution, they replied they do not use OSM tiles or data, which i kindly asked how they had

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : > With today's interactive options, it would indeed be possible to show > the authors of individual features when hovering ;) yes, ALL authors of course, not just the last one ;-) Cheers, Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi Benoît My expectation was and is that we are not going to fundamentally change the requirements, but simply be more prescriptive for more use cases. just as you outline. The only case where I currently think it might be necessary to find something "new" are static (aka non-panable and

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi, On 3/5/19 9:37 AM, althio wrote: > As a test bench last month, we (people from OpenStreetMap France) have > tried to go the other route:  > "let us display as much information as reasonably possible within > attributions, for data, tiles, hosting and display (in French)". A long, long time

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Richard, Simon, all, I am very happy with the current requirements and I think they don't need to be updated. Maybe the Attribution guidance as in Licence_and_Legal_FAQ can indeed be expanded, with some examples of "Dos" and "Don'ts" So I very much look forward LWG's next work

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 06:12:09PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote: > > Am 03.03.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Ineiev: > > ... > > So, when someone violates that license when using the work of > > those contributors, any of them may sue the violator, mayn't they? > > As the user is operating on a licence from

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 03.03.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Ineiev: > ... > So, when someone violates that license when using the work of > those contributors, any of them may sue the violator, mayn't they? As the user is operating on a licence from the OSMF, the foundation would have to make the determination that the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am So., 3. März 2019 um 22:08 Uhr schrieb Nuno Caldeira < nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>: > > > Now the worst case, Facebook. Here's Facebook reply to my email back in > October 2018: > > We don’t currently have attribution on the map “previews” as the map in > preview form isn’t very informative

[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Sorry, sent the previously email to the wrong topic. Thanks for pointing me to it! I commented there about two cases where Mapbox itself is using OSM data without attribution. Hopefully this time I will get an useful reply from Mapbox (so far I tried contacting support but I got no useful

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:09:11PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote: > > Any rights that you might have in your contributions remain yours and > there is no copyright assignment, as you may see for numerous open > source projects). Consumers of OSM data are doing so on a licence > offered by the OSMF

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > Mar 2, 2019, 4:13 PM by f...@zz.de: > >> In most jurisdications licensing and trade marks will only hold up >> when defended or enforced in court. Once you stop doing so you >> might loose your protection. >> > AFAIK risk of losing protection is frequently overstated

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I'm happy there's ODbL. If we would have PD/CC0, we probably would have a farce discussion, standing helpless to license violators. Having said this, I'm proactively supporting the use of OSM of startups and companies, as well as in open source, government and research. Richard had a clear

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 02.03.2019 um 17:09 schrieb Ineiev: > Why OSMF? the copyright holders are still the individual mappers---unless > their copyright is transferred to someone else specifically. > Any rights that you might have in your contributions remain yours and there is no copyright assignment, as you may

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 02.03.2019 um 14:05 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Mar 2, 2019, 12:19 PM by f...@zz.de: > > Yes - we talk nicely - but in > the end nobody is willing to drag them to court. And THAT was the > first > question i had when we talked about relicensing. > > There is a big gap between

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 02.03.2019 um 16:13 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > > In most jurisdications licensing and trade marks will only hold up > when defended or enforced in court. Once you stop doing so you > might loose your protection. This is nonsense as Mateusz has already pointed out and is not even true for

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 11:09:58AM -0500, Ineiev wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 04:13:12PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > > So when relicensing the ultimate consequence is that you need to defend > > your license - and thats was my first question. Is the OSMF willing > > to

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hello, On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 04:13:12PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > So when relicensing the ultimate consequence is that you need to defend > your license - and thats was my first question. Is the OSMF willing > to enforce the license? Why OSMF? the copyright holders are still the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 2, 2019, 4:13 PM by f...@zz.de: > > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 02:05:44PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> Mar 2, 2019, 12:19 PM by >> f...@zz.de >> : >> >> > Yes - we talk nicely - but in >> > the end nobody is willing to drag them to court. And THAT was the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi, On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 02:05:44PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 2, 2019, 12:19 PM by f...@zz.de: > > > Yes - we talk nicely - but in > > the end nobody is willing to drag them to court. And THAT was the first > > question i had when we talked about relicensing. > > There is a big

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 2, 2019, 12:19 PM by f...@zz.de: > Yes - we talk nicely - but in > the end nobody is willing to drag them to court. And THAT was the first > question i had when we talked about relicensing. > There is a big gap between polite (and easily ignorable) messages and court. Have OSMF ever send a

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 08:42:52PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote: > > Am 01.03.2019 um 14:57 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > > ... > > So please either enforce the ODbL or relicense to CC0. > > ... > > It is not a surprise that you are asking that, but just consider what > the world would be like if we

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results > of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On 02/03/19 10:39, Simon Poole wrote: Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller: I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance. IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

sent from a phone > On 1. Mar 2019, at 20:42, Simon Poole wrote: > > The good news is that most re-users of OSM data are good citizens and > even if they mistakenly haven't provided acceptable attribution, fix it the bad news is: this is by numbers of publishers, if you count (end)users it

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller: > I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our > attribution guidance. > > IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops people from providing better

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance. IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! :Stefan P.S. I really would like to collect once in another thread the hidden agendas behind those * argueing against proper attribution of

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė: > As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got > paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private > investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that > isn't even the same sport. You give

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

There is another version of this. The Maps.me app shows the attribution for a couple of seconds after starting and after that it vanishes and a scale appears in the same position. Of course the Maps.me logo at the lower right corner stays there: https://photos.app.goo.gl/F7yUn4BhvxYiC8YJ7 You can

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 9:42 PM by o...@tobias-knerr.de: > I don't perceive off-map attribution as a recent trend: This style of > OSM attribution was reasonably popular even back then, especially in > mobile apps. > (...) > > This is my personal preference, but I would still require equal > prominence

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 20:20 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > ... > The words you quote don't mean what you seem to think they do; they > certainly do not authorise the OSMF to act as my agent in pursuing > claims with regard to /my/ rights. > ... This is were you are confusing things: while it is true that

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On 28.02.19 23:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > The policy, introduced with the changeover to the ODbL, says: > > "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... > For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner > of the map." As you seem to remember

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 14:57 schrieb Florian Lohoff: > ... > So please either enforce the ODbL or relicense to CC0. > > ... It is not a surprise that you are asking that, but just consider what the world would be like if we only had laws that could guaranteed to be 100% enforced. The good news is

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 1, 2019, 3:53 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:56, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? > > You probably agreed to >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 16:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 01.03.19 16:04, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Poppycock. > > The rest of us are trying to have a serious conversation here. Please > adapt or leave. And "Poppycock" is a serious word in the English language. Just like "myth" and "noise",

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Whatever we as a community prefer, let’s not add noise to the discussion by suggesting that it’s somehow hard to do because of UX requirements (as Simon points out correctly as well). Here’s Scout on an iPhone SE (75% fewer pixels than most modern smartphones, let alone desktop browsers):

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 3:53 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:56, Marc Gemis <> marc.ge...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? >> >> You probably agreed to >>

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi, On 01.03.19 16:04, Andy Mabbett wrote: > Poppycock. The rest of us are trying to have a serious conversation here. Please adapt or leave. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi all, I find this funny in a way. Traditionally, big corps disliked "share-alike" open source/data licences, like ODbL, GNU GPL (or the Affero GPL!), and prefer "attribution only" licences like BSD. And here we have companies not liking the attribution requirement! If they won't follow our

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Below is an example of attribution that can be seen even on small devices. For the maps that I develop, I do take care to add attribution. Testing even on my phone, I can see attribution with Portrait orientation but have problems with landscape orientation since there are not enough lines. And

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote: > I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution > visible by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data > source link), because when you have more than one data source, it is > not practical to show that much info. This

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in > > particular with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to > > pave over this conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as > > possible without this resulting in gross

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 13:44, Simon Poole wrote: > Am 01.03.2019 um 12:49 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > > wrote: > > > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and > >> individual > >> mappers are unable to do it,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 13:29, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:06 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: >> https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/ > Well, OSM *is* attributed on the bottom-right corner of the map. The > text says: "Open Street: { Data © OpenStreetMap contributors, >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 1, 2019, 12:49 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and > individual > mappers are unable to do it,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01, pn 16:25, Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > For full screen map two lines of text is perfectly OK. > Two lines for ONE source, then additional lines for other sources. That is not OK. Plus corners are good spots for action places, it is not OK when attribution occupies two corners. It

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:56, Marc Gemis wrote: > > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? > You probably agreed to > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms, not ? I believe I did. What does that have to do with my point? -- Andy

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 3:17 PM by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > Even OSM attribution takes full line on smaller (not older) phones. Altitude > data provider attribution wraps in such case. > For full screen map two lines of text is perfectly OK. ___ talk mailing

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution visible by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data source link), because when you have more than one data source, it is not practical to show that much info. My second source is altitude data (hillshade, contours,

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:51 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular > with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this > conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this > resulting in

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > But the attribution font is so tiny that is is barely noticeable. > There is attribution, but it is debatable whether using a tiny font > size makes the attribution improper or ridiculous. No, that is not debatable and neither is the second

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 10:48:54AM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > a) would require changing license again, right? Yes - And i had the question before we relicensed - Are we going to have a Licensing Working group which enforces the ODbL even in court. Probably we are now at the point where

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:49 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and >> individual >> mappers are unable to do it, right? > I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:06 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > I cannot help pointing out that the EU commission is also responsible for > one of the most ridiculous cases of improper attribution i have seen so far: > > https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/ > Well, OSM *is* attributed on the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 1:05 PM by mikel.ma...@gmail.com: > As enthusiastic as I am to see osm “in the wild”, I’m irritated by license > shaming. I know, it’s irritating by design. I don’t believe it works and just > casts a bad light of OSM. > I agree, and probably most mappers agree. That is probably

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 12:31 PM by si...@poole.ch: > > > > Am 01.03.2019 um 12:01 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> >> >> >> Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by >> si...@poole.ch >> : >> >>> >>> And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the >>> results of the

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 12:49 PM by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and >> individual >> mappers are unable to do

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Just as my opinions here don’t represent the osmf board, they don’t represent Mapbox either. Personally, I don’t care much about the details of attribution either way. I love to see it and regularly look for it in every map I come across. I tweeted this three weeks ago 

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Friday 01 March 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote: > [...] > > Good examples of attribution[...] Note the ODbL requires attribution of the database creator (OpenStreetMap contributors) and explaining that the data is available under the ODbL. The Copyright page says this can be done by linking

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

> > I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of yours. > > I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you? You probably agreed to https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms, not ? m. ___

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

I very much agree. In particular i have been pointing out the insulting and disrespectful nature of second rate attributions - that is people producing other attributions (most frequently for themselves) significantly more prominently or accessible than for OSM. There are of course corporate

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and > individual > mappers are unable to do it, right? I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of yours. I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 12:01 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > > > Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the > results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:51, Simon Poole wrote: > Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > > 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where - > > depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be > > readable, or so big it obscures what people need

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 11:48 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > > > Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> >> > . > > >> c) I recommend doing this, Itried mailing Mapbox about their >> license-breaking >> hiding attribution but atfirst their responded claiming that

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by si...@poole.ch: > > And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results > of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 >

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: . > c) I recommend doing this, I tried mailing Mapbox about their > license-breaking > hiding attribution but at first their responded claiming that OSBL > allows that, > after quoting that part of them they went back to not responding > > d)

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Just a couple of general comments on this. - The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this year see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10 - I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've actually written

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Well wrote this yesterday at 3 AM, however due to the images it got stuck so im uploading them else where. Over the last months i have expressed my concern about these interpretations of "its not on ODbL", OSMF requests dont count a thing, or it should be write "must" instead of "should". Most of

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mar 1, 2019, 2:51 AM by mikel.ma...@gmail.com: > ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about > equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on > enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. > Untrue, see "You must include a notice

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... >> For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner >> of the map." > 28 characters. There are

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Feb 28, 2019, 11:35 PM by rich...@systemed.net: > This response might be: > > a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will > update our requirements to say so > b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but > we do not intend to

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mikel Maron wrote: > We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. > We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation > can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion > will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi, what I write below is my own opinion and not that of the OSMF board, just as Mikel's opinion is his own and not that of the OSMF board. On 01.03.19 02:51, Mikel Maron wrote: > These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to > happen, or anything about equivalence

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Paul Norman via talk writes: > On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" >> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an >> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: >> >>

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... > For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner > of the map." 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where - depending on

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On 01/03/19 09:50, Paul Norman via talk wrote: On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:

[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

Hi all, In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png