Am 08.12.2020 um 18:36 schrieb Rory McCann:
Yes, fundamentally, you're 100% correct. The ODbL licence is the thing that
matters when it comes to what's legally required. And that says nothing about
“device independent pixels” or “javascript popup clicks”, it only refers to the
mental state
Dec 8, 2020, 18:41 by r...@technomancy.org:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>> Can you give an example of something that would follow
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
>> and still would not fulfill ODBL?
>>
>
> What is and
> Rory McCann hat am 08.12.2020 18:41 geschrieben:
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > Can you give an example of something that would follow
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
> > and still would not fulfill ODBL?
>
>
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> Can you give an example of something that would follow
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
> and still would not fulfill ODBL?
What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a
Yes, fundamentally, you're 100% correct. The ODbL licence is the thing that
matters when it comes to what's legally required. And that says nothing about
“device independent pixels” or “javascript popup clicks”, it only refers to the
mental state of someone.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights
Can you give an example of something that would follow
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice
and still would not fulfill ODBL?
I see no obvious loopholes there.
Dec 7, 2020, 22:57 by r...@technomancy.org:
> It's good to see more discussion on this. I like that this
> Rory McCann hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben:
>
> But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the
> relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution
> where someone could argue that they meet this standard.
As i have already
It's good to see more discussion on this. I like that this document lays out
the moral requirment to attribute. We don't ask for any money, but we do ask
you to attribute us. It's a very good bargain.
But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the
relevant section
The text of the first section previously ended with this sentence:
"To what extent you might practically get away with lesser attribution -
either legally or socially - is outside the scope of this document."
Probably such a sentence is acceptable in some cultures, but it sounds odd
in the
Hi,
On 12/4/20 21:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed:
Might be worth waiting until the next OSMF board meeting (in 5 days)
which has the official attribution guidelines on its agenda; perhaps
they come to a decision on that which
One thing that is missing to me is explicit mention that it is not
overriding ODBL or related laws and is not adding any legal
requirements.
If someone follows ODBL license or is in situation where following license
is not needed for some reason, they can legally do this.
Maybe also mention that
[This is the current text:]
This document is an attempt to summarize the expectations the OpenStreetMap
mapper community has for OSM data users regarding the attribution required
by the OpenStreetMap license.
In line with the general culture of OpenStreetMap it does not try to
provide step by
I appreciate the wik page "Community attribution advice" which was made by
another community member. It seems to give good advice about how database
users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that everybody*
in this community can support.
Please review the page and make any
13 matches
Mail list logo
