subject:"\[OSM\-talk\] Attribution guideline status update"

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
> missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
> it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
> data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then
> why not believe they are looking into it? They will probably fix it after
> they figure it out. DJI fixed it after investigating, and it took them a
> while to investigate as well.
>
> By inspecting their code from the link i shared you get. src=
> "https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png;
> 
> unless they are using Mapbox without their attribution which i presume
> would be unauthorized use of Mapboxeither that or are premium clients
> (i did asked them that, they didn't reply obviously). None the less I gave
> up on asking Mapbox to make sure their clients comply with our license and
> their terms of service, as they ignore it. Which is a shame coming from a
> OSMF corporate member. Anyway i have asked, several times, even public,
> another OSMF corporate member to do the same, still displaying HERE logo on
> our data. Probably they take HERE seriously (legal) and not OSMF or OSM
> contributors.
>
> So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free. You
should report it to Mapbox.


> About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel (the
> company that omitted the attribution and runs https://dronesafetymap.com/)
> and are now using Mapbox instead as you can see here
> https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox owns me a cup of tea for
> another client, oh well i can refuse that cup of tea for adding the
> attribution proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i think
> they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of proudly showing it. It's not
> about the data, it's what you do with it that matters and Mapbox does it
> well, but hiding the source is dirty.
>
How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can see from the
map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use more than one data source?

>
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean?
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others
> in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources,
> after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.
>
> Discussing the reasonable definition is nonsense. Also comparing us to the
> others in the industry is not reasonable as we do not accept money for
> providing data or removing attribution.
>
That might be your opinion, but I think a court would disagree. Courts
often look at norms in order to interpret a licence.


> Why not 100 click attribution? well that wasn't, isn't and never will be
> the spirit of open data. Unless OSMF is going against it's owns Objects of
> the foundation articles:
>
> OBJECTS
>
> 3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:
> (1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free
> geospatial data; and (2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and
> share.
>
>  The objects don't say anything about strict attribution requirements. In
fact, requirements that are too strict will *discourage* the "distribution
of free geospatial data" by making it too difficult to use. That's the
opposite of "providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share."


> A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources
> after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is
> also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, maybe we should fix it and give the example of
> one click only, just to avoid unreasonable interpretations. Anyway it's
> this kind of misleading interpretation of adding a simply “© OpenStreetMap
> contributors” to the data they are using, like it was some kind of secret
> (probably is for none OSMers and general public) that places OSMF projet at
> risk as it clearly does not encourage anything.
>
Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since the
beginning?


> And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out long
> after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, Creative
> Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" attribution for
> multiple sources this page: https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28
> Click on "Course Terms of Use" to see a list of attributions.
>
> well 4 c) says of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says:
>
> If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, *You
> must keep intact all copyright notices* for the Work

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is 
completely missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's 
missing and that it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where 
they are getting their data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If 
they are looking into it, then why not believe they are looking into 
it? They will probably fix it after they figure it out. DJI fixed it 
after investigating, and it took them a while to investigate as well.


By inspecting their code from the link i shared you get. 
src="https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png; 
unless they are using Mapbox without their attribution which i presume 
would be unauthorized use of Mapboxeither that or are premium 
clients (i did asked them that, they didn't reply obviously). None the 
less I gave up on asking Mapbox to make sure their clients comply with 
our license and their terms of service, as they ignore it. Which is a 
shame coming from a OSMF corporate member. Anyway i have asked, several 
times, even public, another OSMF corporate member to do the same, still 
displaying HERE logo on our data. Probably they take HERE seriously 
(legal) and not OSMF or OSM contributors.


About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel (the 
company that omitted the attribution and runs 
https://dronesafetymap.com/) and are now using Mapbox instead as you can 
see here https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox owns me a cup of 
tea for another client, oh well i can refuse that cup of tea for adding 
the attribution proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i 
think they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of proudly showing it. 
It's not about the data, it's what you do with it that matters and 
Mapbox does it well, but hiding the source is dirty.



"reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? 
Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do 
others in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data 
sources, after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.


Discussing the reasonable definition is nonsense. Also comparing us to 
the others in the industry is not reasonable as we do not accept money 
for providing data or removing attribution.


Why not 100 click attribution? well that wasn't, isn't and never will be 
the spirit of open data. Unless OSMF is going against it's owns Objects 
of the foundation articles:




OBJECTS

3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:

(1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free
geospatial data; and
(2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share.



A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data 
sources after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data 
is also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?


Thanks for the suggestion, maybe we should fix it and give the example 
of one click only, just to avoid unreasonable interpretations. Anyway 
it's this kind of misleading interpretation of adding a simply “© 
OpenStreetMap contributors” to the data they are using, like it was some 
kind of secret (probably is for none OSMers and general public) that 
places OSMF projet at risk as it clearly does not encourage anything.





And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out 
long after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, 
Creative Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" 
attribution for multiple sources this page: 
https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28 Click on "Course Terms 
of Use" to see a list of attributions.


well 4 c) says of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says:

If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly 
digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective 
Works, _*You must keep intact all copyright notices*_ for the Work and 
give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You 
are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of 
the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to 
the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if 
any, _*that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work*_


https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." [...]

I am sorry but this is completely distorting the ODbL.

"reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, ... aware" means 
that the calculation on what effect the specific form of attribution 
chosen is going to have on the awareness of the person about the data 
used needs to be performed in a reasonable fashion.

If the attribution required to accomplish that is reasonable from the 
perspective of the wannabe data user for their desired use case or if 
it is comparable to possible attribution requirements of other geodata 
sources produced by people who are paid for their work has zero effect 
on the fulfilment of the requirements of the license.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then
why not believe they are looking into it? They will probably fix it after
they figure it out. DJI fixed it after investigating, and it took them a
while to investigate as well.

"reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? Well
a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others in
the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources, after a
click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.
A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources
after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is
also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?

And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out long
after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, Creative
Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" attribution for
multiple sources this page: https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28
Click on "Course Terms of Use" to see a list of attributions.


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:38 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
> an image
>
> As written on CC-BY-SA
>
> *Attribution*.
>
> If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
> retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed
> Material:
>
>1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any
>others designated to receive attribution, in any r*easonable manner
>requested by the Licensor* (including by pseudonym if designated);
>
>  in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
>
>
>
> that no interaction is allowed???
>
>
> it says:
>
> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
> Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
> Publicly Use a Produced Work, *You must include a notice associated with*
> * the Produced Work* reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> *views,* accesses, interacts with, or is *otherwise exposed* to the
> Produced
> Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
> is available under this License.
>
> If you can explain me how  "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views or
> is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced work.
> Feel free, i would like to know.
>
> Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors and
> it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt.
>
>
> Let's do an exercise.
>
> LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a third
> party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the license,
> they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my
> contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients
> doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service
> provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying with
> the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For over one
> month their legal department is still checking this.
>
> Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area),
> click on the "i" for the map to display
> https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of the
> maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp
>
> Now the questions:
>
> 1 - Are they fulfilling the license?
>
> a) yes
>
> B) no
>
>
> 2 - Who's responsible?
>
> a) Mapbox
>
> b) LiveStream/Vimeo
>
>
> But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that
> attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is allowed",
> i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at all of OSM
> data.
>
>
> 3 - Who's not aware?
>
> a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member
>
> b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox
>
> c) contributors/OSMF
>
>
>
> Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
> Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
> an image or that no interaction is allowed???
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow quote
>> was not true?
>>
>> Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
>>
>>
>> Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact to
>> acknowledge the

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like
> being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that
> one of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in
> 2012, so not a corporate representative, and has been at
> osm.org/copyright ever since.

Then let me rephrase:

It looks pretty much like being put together by corporate 
representatives.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM
> attribution behind a click is not acceptable.

Unless "OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part 
of the visible map rendering" - which is the case for almost all 
commercial maps.

> That's unambiguous all 
> we need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a
> diversion and is not supported by the ODbL.

I don't think anyone but you talked about logos here.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example 
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but 
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.

> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how 
> to comply with the license.

And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.

Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a
blog.

> > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I
> > was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)
>
> You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider 
> this statement to be an argument on the matter.
>
> For better understanding:  Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in 
> the design of the document and lists a number of example to 
> demonstrate that.  You could argue the observation of there being 
> such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples.  You 
> however did neither of these in your statement.

For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like 
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one 
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.

Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update


Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, 
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and 
a link „and others“
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate 
attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s 
misleading.


I know this, but let's not confuse the matter by calling this "second 
rate attribution". It isn't. It's no attribution.


These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM 
attribution behind a click is not acceptable. That's unambiguous all we 
need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a diversion 
and is not supported by the ODbL.


Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update



. Plus, if anyone went to court trying to enforce something that OSMF 
recommended that was outside the licence, they would lose, and perhaps 
be forced by the court to pay attorney's fees.


Maybe individual contributors might feel "scary" of the attorney fees, 
but probably not these contributors (some even shared under CC):


Our contributors are thousands of individuals. We also include 
openly-licensed data from national mapping agencies and other sources, 
among them:


  * *Austria*: Contains data from Stadt Wien
 (under CC BY
), Land
Vorarlberg


and Land Tirol (under CC BY AT with amendments

).

  * *Australia*: Contains data sourced from PSMA Australia Limited

licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia under CC BY 4.0
.
  * *Canada*: Contains data from GeoBase®, GeoGratis (© Department of
Natural Resources Canada), CanVec (© Department of Natural
Resources Canada), and StatCan (Geography Division, Statistics
Canada).
  * *Finland*: Contains data from the National Land Survey of
Finland's Topographic Database and other datasets, under the NLSFI
License
.
  * *France*: Contains data sourced from Direction Générale des Impôts.
  * *Netherlands*: Contains © AND data, 2007 (www.and.com
)
  * *New Zealand*: Contains data sourced from the LINZ Data Service
 and licensed for reuse under CC BY
4.0 .
  * *Slovenia*: Contains data from the Surveying and Mapping Authority
 and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Food  (public information of
Slovenia).
  * *Spain*: Contains data sourced from the Spanish National
Geographic Institute (IGN ) and National
Cartographic System (SCNE ) licensed for
reuse under CC BY 4.0 .
  * *South Africa*: Contains data sourced from Chief Directorate:
National Geo-Spatial Information , State
copyright reserved.
  * *United Kingdom*: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright
and database right 2010-19.


from https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


Would be interesting to hear from these agencies what their thoughts of 
the lack of attribution or different interpretation of ODbL. Probably 
not happy and would certainly arm OSMF reputation.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> I disagree that there is no harm. [...]

Not sure if you noticed but my argument was the inherent asymmetry of 
the situation when creating a guideline with recommendations.  If there 
is harm like "hurt feelings" from erring on the side of caution in a 
guideline is completely beside the point.

The credibility point does decidedly *not* go both ways.  The OSMF is 
not a neutral intermediary, it has the obligation to represent the 
interests of the project and not those of outside data users.  As Nuno 
linked to the OSMF right now points out the reasons why we ask for 
attribution:

"We want you to attribute OpenStreetMap, i.e. you show users and viewers 
of whatever you do with our data clearly where you got the data from. A 
lot of contributors have spent and spend a lot of time and effort 
adding data from virtually every country in the world. We would also 
like people to know about our project and perhaps use or contribute 
data themselves."

It is completely acceptable and even expected that the OSMF asks for and 
encourages attribution of OSM beyond the minimum required by the 
license.  That this would result in the loss of trust from anyone seems 
ridiculous.

And by the way if i try to follow your line of reasoning: you 
interestingly did not mention the most significant harm resulting from 
potentially unneccessary requirements:  Lost profits.

Ein Schelm wer böses dabei denkt...

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on 
top of an image

As written on CC-BY-SA


*Attribution*.

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the 
Licensed Material:


 1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any
others designated to receive attribution, in any r_*easonable
manner requested by the Licensor*_ (including by pseudonym if
designated);


 in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode




that no interaction is allowed???


it says:


4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
Publicly Use a Produced Work, _You must include a notice associated with__
__the Produced Work_ reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
_views,_ accesses, interacts with, or is _otherwise exposed_ to the 
Produced

Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
is available under this License.
If you can explain me how  "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views 
or is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced 
work. Feel free, i would like to know.


Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors 
and it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt.



Let's do an exercise.

LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a 
third party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the 
license, they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my 
contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients 
doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service 
provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying 
with the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For 
over one month their legal department is still checking this.


Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area), 
click on the "i" for the map to display 
https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of 
the maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp


Now the questions:

1 - Are they fulfilling the license?

a) yes

B) no


2 - Who's responsible?

a) Mapbox

b) LiveStream/Vimeo


But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that 
attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is 
allowed", i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at 
all of OSM data.



3 - Who's not aware?

a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member

b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox

c) contributors/OSMF



Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on 
top of an image or that no interaction is allowed???



On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the
bellow quote was not true?


Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.



https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F


Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to
interact to acknowledge the notice.

Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:


Guidelines by the licensor


On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with
users of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court
would make a final decision on the issue, however we hope
these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in
the first place and can be considered by the courts in
coming to their verdict. 


from
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines


Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have
quoted here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might*
happen and what motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly,
OSMF can choose to change the language you have quoted as a part
of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the
contract, is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the
only thing that matters. The words of the licence matter more,
and if there is a conflict between what the licensor thinks and
what the licence says, the words of the licence will control. In
that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and there are plenty
of cases where that was the end result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 9. Aug 2019, at 14:19, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
> But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
> be at least on the same level of 
> prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
> providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, 
there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and 
a link „and others“ 
while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate 
attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s 
misleading.

Cheers Martin 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

I disagree that there is no harm. The credibility point goes both ways.
While no one could sue OSMF for recommending something that is not required
by the license, OSMF would lose the trust of data users, mappers, and any
adjudicative tribunals.
And it would be misleading and harmful to anyone who sought to enforce the
licence, causing, at the very least, confusion, arguments and hurt
feelings. Plus, if anyone went to court trying to enforce something that
OSMF recommended that was outside the licence, they would lose, and perhaps
be forced by the court to pay attorney's fees. While this would probably
not cause financial harm to OSMF, but it would be very damaging to the
community.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:29 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> > You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
> > reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
> > unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
> > one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and,
> > under the law, rightly so.
>
> The key point is that it is fine if the guidelines deviate from the
> license on the side of caution, i.e. as Richard puts it: requiring
> something that is not in the license.  That is possibly suboptimal but
> there is no serious harm to err on the side of caution.  No data user
> could sue the OSMF for in the guidelines recommending something that is
> not required by the license.  OTOH if the guidelines recommend
> something that is not allowed by the license that is a serious problem,
> it defeats the whole purpose of the guideline and endangers the
> credibility of the OSMF both with mappers and data users.
>
> In the current form i have the impression that the guideline draft tries
> to state the most lenient interpretation of the license w.r.t.
> attribution that is imaginable which is not obviously wrong (and in
> case of the 50 percent rule i think it goes beyond that - this is
> obviously not compatible with the license from my point of view).  I
> find this kind of - well - reckless.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
an image or that no interaction is allowed???


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow quote
> was not true?
>
> Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
>
>
> Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact to
> acknowledge the notice.
> Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
>
> Guidelines by the licensor
>>
>> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our
>> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision
>> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid 
>> *disputes
>> arising in the first place and can be considered by the courts in coming to
>> their verdict.
>>
>> from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>>
>
> Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted
> here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what
> motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to change
> the language you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
> Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract, is
> taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that matters.
> The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a conflict between
> what the licensor thinks and what the licence says, the words of the
> licence will control. In that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and
> there are plenty of cases where that was the end result).
> You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
> guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and not
> tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of the data
> or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.
>
>
>>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
> reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
> unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
> one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and,
> under the law, rightly so.

The key point is that it is fine if the guidelines deviate from the 
license on the side of caution, i.e. as Richard puts it: requiring 
something that is not in the license.  That is possibly suboptimal but 
there is no serious harm to err on the side of caution.  No data user 
could sue the OSMF for in the guidelines recommending something that is 
not required by the license.  OTOH if the guidelines recommend 
something that is not allowed by the license that is a serious problem, 
it defeats the whole purpose of the guideline and endangers the 
credibility of the OSMF both with mappers and data users.

In the current form i have the impression that the guideline draft tries 
to state the most lenient interpretation of the license w.r.t. 
attribution that is imaginable which is not obviously wrong (and in 
case of the 50 percent rule i think it goes beyond that - this is 
obviously not compatible with the license from my point of view).  I 
find this kind of - well - reckless.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Dave F via talk wrote:
> Hi
>
> Static Images.
>
> "Static images should be generally attributed the same way as dynamic
> images, " I agree & a way to enable users to easily add attribution
> needs to be created. The Share>Image feature on the main page should
> automatically image stamp the attribution into the corner. "images of
> areas less 10’000 m2or fewer than 100 features do not require
> attribution." For a static image I'm struggling to see what the area
> coverage or the number of items contained has to do with adding an
> attribution - an image is an image, irrelevant of size. DaveF

I think the idea is that if you create a map based on an insubstantial 
amount of OSM data no attribution is required - this derives from 
the "Substantial" Guideline.

If you now crop from a larger map a rectangle that equally contains only 
an insubstantial amount of OSM data it makes sense to treat this the 
same way.  This would only apply to individual small images though - 
not to pages systematically showing lots of different crops.  This 
restriction, which would match the "Substantial" Guideline, is missing 
so far.

I am not sure about the origin of the 10k m^2 limit - that is not in 
the "Substantial" Guideline at the moment.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow
quote was not true?

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact
to acknowledge the notice.

Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:

Guidelines by the licensor

On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users
of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a
final decision on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are
helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in the first place and can be
considered by the courts in coming to their verdict.

from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted
here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what
motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to
change the language you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract,
is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that
matters. The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a
conflict between what the licensor thinks and what the licence says,
the words of the licence will control. In that case, the licensor is
simply "wrong" (and there are plenty of cases where that was the end
result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and
not tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of
the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Pierre Béland via talk

I agree, this would be more snappy and more international. It woulrd not be 
necessary to translate the attribution for various languages.   By shortening 
the attribution, their would be less excuses to not attribute on the map.

 
Pierre 
 

Le vendredi 9 août 2019 10 h 40 min 27 s UTC−4, Frederik Ramm 
 a écrit :  
 
 Hi,

I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
altogether.

The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
into German, you would have to say "OpenStreetMap-Beitragende" or, more
correctly, "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap", which to the un-initiated
sounds a bit strange and kind of dilutes the OpenStreetMap brand by
adding things before or after. I am pretty sure that there are languages
where grammar in fact requires that the "contributors" be placed before
OSM (as in my "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap" example) and where no
grammatically correct way exists to place OSM first.

I know, OpenStreetMap is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be said
to own the copyright. Then again, "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" is
not technically correct either, as there are many ways in which you can
contribute to OSM, but only some of them will earn you a share of the
copyright in the map. Someone who contributes to OSM by giving us money,
or writing code, or organising meetups, is not part of the group that
holds the rights in the map.

I would find a simple "(c) OpenStreetMap" better, more snappy, more
recognizable than if we demand that the "contributors" are mentioned.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

> Guidelines by the licensor
>
> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our
> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision
> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes
> arising in the first place and can be considered by the courts in coming to
> their verdict.
>
> from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>

Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted here
isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what motivates
OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to change the language
you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract, is
taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that matters.
The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a conflict between
what the licensor thinks and what the licence says, the words of the
licence will control. In that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and
there are plenty of cases where that was the end result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and not
tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of the data
or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.


>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update




* What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM
data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map
data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license
information part of the download process, or is it still required that
attribution is visible on-screen during use?

Tobias



From my perspective, the user is aware of the map source and must be 
sure of the terms of it. Example Arcgis or QGIS software, both allow to 
use OSM as basemap or download the data. They do not show the license.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Às 14:56 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how
to work with OSM data to comply with the license. No data user has to
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to
comply with the license. The Guidelines should never suggest something
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule)
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by
the license. And saying "if you attribute in this way that is
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.

Guidelines by the licensor

On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of
our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final
decision on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to
*avoid *disputes arising in the first place and can be considered by
the courts in coming to their verdict.

from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

what companies are doing, is exactly the opposite, they justify their
actions based on the license interpretation to their own interests, not
taking into account what the licensor says.

The license is clear:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must*include a notice* associated with
the *Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person* that uses,
*views*, accesses, interacts with, *or is otherwise exposed to the
Produced**

**Work aware that Content was obtained from *the Database, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
is available under this License.
Unless someone can explain me how i'm i suppose to see the notice when
i'm view or am exposed to their produced work if they are not showing it
visibly and clearly without me having to interact to either click an "i"
icon or go through endless submenus to figure out what's the map source.
the word "interacts" is there for a reason...

And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM
compared to other attributions given this is less the case. In the
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the
simplest answer.

quoting ODbL:

4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database.

They must keep the notice intact, therefore attributing OSM.

When we switched from CC to ODbL, this was documented as:

Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F

Ditching the attribution for second rate attribution is not only unfair,
does not meet this and also goes against OSMF objects of the foundation
articles
.
Unless someone explains me how we are promoting the growdth, development
and distribution of free geospatial data to those that are not aware of
it by hiding the source of the wonderful maps those companies do with
the data from this lovely community.

you show users and viewers of whatever you do with our data clearly
where you got the data from. A lot of contributors have spent and
spend a lot of time and effort adding data from virtually every
country in the world. We would also like people to know about our
project and perhaps use or contribute data themselves.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F

Also it's crucial the attribution has in marketing and promotion of the
project. Or are we having a Working group for that?

About omitting permanently the "contributors" part by me is fine, but i
truly hope the argument of "lack of space to display" will not be used
like it's being abusively justified like it is now.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Tobias Knerr

Thank you for your work! I believe that clearly documenting our
expectations is a very important step towards solving the current
problems surrounding attribution. It will help well-intentioned data
users to avoid accidentally messing up OSM attribution, and it leaves
fewer excuses for the less well-intentioned ones – making it easier for
us to put pressure on them to improve their practices.

I do have a couple of questions/comments about the current draft:

* Can you confirm that the current attribution practices on Wikipedia
and many similar projects would be covered by the "small images" case?

* I believe video games/simulations should be given similar treatment as
fictional movie productions by permitting attribution in the credits as
an alternative to the current options. Not allowing this seems to
contradict the larger "in a location where customarily attribution would
be expected" principle, as rolling credits are customary for many gaming
genres. (I'm mostly thinking of traditional PC or console games here,
not so much of mobile apps.)

* What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM
data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map
data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license
information part of the download process, or is it still required that
attribution is visible on-screen during use?

Tobias

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Dave F via talk

Static Images.

"Static images should be generally attributed the same way as dynamic
images, " I agree & a way to enable users to easily add attribution
needs to be created. The Share>Image feature on the main page should
automatically image stamp the attribution into the corner. "images of
areas less 10’000 m2or fewer than 100 features do not require
attribution." For a static image I'm struggling to see what the area
coverage or the number of items contained has to do with adding an
attribution - an image is an image, irrelevant of size. DaveF On
09/08/2019 08:41, Simon Poole wrote:

As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
something different.

We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
appreciate feedback on.

Simon

PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Jóhannes Birgir Jensson

I concur, this becomes long and unwieldy fast in my own language and to fully 
capture it requires a full sentence, with a comma for clarity even.

Behind OpenStreetMap the brand we have contributors amongst others.



9. ágúst 2019 kl. 14:40, skrifaði "Frederik Ramm" :

> Hi,
> 
> I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
> altogether.
> 
> The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
> strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
> what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
> into German, you would have to say "OpenStreetMap-Beitragende" or, more
> correctly, "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap", which to the un-initiated
> sounds a bit strange and kind of dilutes the OpenStreetMap brand by
> adding things before or after. I am pretty sure that there are languages
> where grammar in fact requires that the "contributors" be placed before
> OSM (as in my "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap" example) and where no
> grammatically correct way exists to place OSM first.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Clifford Snow

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:35 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
> altogether.
>

I agree, I've often felt that the OpenStreetMap Contributors was unwieldy.
If we agree to the change, I imagine that OpenStreetMap would need to be
redefined to include its data contributors.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
altogether.

The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
into German, you would have to say "OpenStreetMap-Beitragende" or, more
correctly, "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap", which to the un-initiated
sounds a bit strange and kind of dilutes the OpenStreetMap brand by
adding things before or after. I am pretty sure that there are languages
where grammar in fact requires that the "contributors" be placed before
OSM (as in my "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap" example) and where no
grammatically correct way exists to place OSM first.

I know, OpenStreetMap is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be said
to own the copyright. Then again, "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" is
not technically correct either, as there are many ways in which you can
contribute to OSM, but only some of them will earn you a share of the
copyright in the map. Someone who contributes to OSM by giving us money,
or writing code, or organising meetups, is not part of the group that
holds the rights in the map.

I would find a simple "(c) OpenStreetMap" better, more snappy, more
recognizable than if we demand that the "contributors" are mentioned.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Andy Mabbett

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 08:41, Simon Poole  wrote:

> to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document

Some thoughts:

> www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

openstreetmap.org/copyright (without "www") works, and should be
preferred (several occurrences).

> Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".

Add "or the equivalent in the local language".

Change "requested" to "preferred", since other forms are allowable.

> You should qualify the credit to explain what OSM content you are
> using. For example, if you have rendered OSM data to your own
> design, you may wish to use "Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors".

Confusion between "should" and "may".

> If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than
> 50%) part of the visible map rendering...

The concerns others have raised could be addressed by changing this to
"If less than 50% of the data used for the visible map rendering is
from OpenStreetMap..."

> Except for small images

"small" is subjective; give a definition.

>Applications that incorporate a geocoder must credit OpenStreetMap

Change to "Applications that incorporate a geocoder that uses
OpenStreetMap data must credit OpenStreetMap"

> or in a footnote/endnote if that is where other credits appear and/or in the 
> "acknowledgements" section

Change to "or in a footnote/endnote and/or in the 'acknowledgements'
section, whichever is where other credits appear"

> Tv, film or video

Typo; should be "TV, film or video"

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the
> reward of being recognized by external data users" has never even
> been on my list, or of those mappers I know, of reasons for why we
> map.

Please don't twist my words - i have not said mappers are "mapping for 
the reward of being recognized by external data users".  I said "While 
elsewhere people generating geodata are almost always rewarded for 
their work also in other form (like salery) in OSM the only recognition 
mappers receive from external data users is the attribution required by 
the license".  That is a huge difference.

The growth of the mapper community and in particular the increase in the 
number of mappers who are externally motivated to map (like paid 
mappers or mappers in organized humanitarian mapping projects) can 
certainly lead to the impression that those mappers whose commitment 
depends on the social contract between mappers and data users being 
honored by the data users are not strictly needed any more for the 
project to survive.  I would not be too sure about that though.  
Research on social networks in general typically shows that the 
function and attractiveness of a network to participants often depends 
on a relatively small number of participants.  And in particular power 
mappers who might have over many years mapped a significant fraction of 
their home town and environment are quite likely to become demotivated 
when they see that data users increasingly just rip off their work and 
can't be bothered to even acknowledge their contribution in a very 
basic and collective fashion.  With mapper retention over longer time 
being an issue in general this is a significant problem.

Note that this idea of the function of attribution in OSM is not my 
invention, this is a matter that has been discussed plenty of times 
over the years with the basic point i am trying to make here being 
agreed on by many different people.  Obviously there are also many 
mappers who don't care about attribution and who would be fine or would 
even prefer if OSM data was PD.  But that is not my point here.  
Because also those mappers are to a large fraction fully aware that 
this view is not universal.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > It does not in any way address the problem of second rate
> > attribution (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of
> > the map service or the media outlet publishing the map) is being
> > attributed more prominently than OSM.
>
> That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with
> an obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.
>
> "Second rate attribution" is not a problem. [...]

Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example the 
map on the bottom right of:

https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran

printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but 
showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

> But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution
> needs to be at least on the same level of
> prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers,
> service providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how 
to work with OSM data to comply with the license.  No data user has to 
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.  
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to 
comply with the license.  The Guidelines should never suggest something 
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule) 
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by 
the license.  And saying "if you attribute in this way that is 
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes 
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.

And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line 
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the 
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM 
compared to other attributions given this is less the case.  In the 
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would 
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could 
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to 
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map 
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the 
simplest answer.

> Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was
> editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)

You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider this 
statement to be an argument on the matter.

For better understanding:  Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in the 
design of the document and lists a number of example to demonstrate 
that.  You could argue the observation of there being such a pattern or 
you could argue the individual examples.  You however did neither of 
these in your statement.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution 
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service 
> or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more 
> prominently than OSM.

That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an
obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.

"Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big
Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the
ODbL.

The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution
other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying
"there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an
infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause.

But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
be at least on the same level of 
prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much 
> like being written by corporate representatives

Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a
magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever
since, so nope. :)

Richard

[1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Jóhannes Birgir Jensson

I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the reward of 
being recognized by external data users" has never even been on my list, or of 
those mappers I know, of reasons for why we map.

Of course everyones self-image is their own, so I don't know about your claim 
of there being a fundamental one for the whole community.

Just my 2 krónur.

-- /OSM: Stalfur


9. ágúst 2019 kl. 11:15, skrifaði "Christoph Hormann" :

> And frankly it also contradicts the fundamental self-image of the mapper 
> community. As has been discussed plenty of times the way geodata is 
> generated in OSM is fundamentally different from other geodata sources. 
> While elsewhere people generating geodata are almost always rewarded 
> for their work also in other form (like salery) in OSM the only 
> recognition mappers receive from external data users is the attribution 
> required by the license. Putting OSM on the same level as other data 
> providers like you do above is totally inappropriate.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

About the 50% exception. i recently had to be unpleasant with Fatmap 
(their app and website https://fatmap.com/), after 2 months of zero 
action from their side. Source 
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1136624467000602624 after my 
message on the 3rd of August, they contacted me via private message, to 
which i explained how to attribute, linking to copyright page, OSMF 
guidelines and license terms. They stated:


"Thank you - yes our mapping and tech teams are in touch with them 
both now. _We have over 20 different providers for our map_, all with 
different requirements and different integrations. So we are working 
out the best solution!"


To which i replied i had nothing to do with the other sources, how they 
must fulfil the other sources attribution (if applies)  and they should 
comply with our attribution as required. They then replied:


Once we have found a solution together with the OSM and MapBox teams, 
I will let you know!"
i asked them with whom of OSM/OSMF they are speaking to, they never 
replied back. Can anyone from OSMF tell me with who they are working in 
OSM/OSMF? I would like to know or if they are just saying they are 
talking to, when they are not. AFAIK we do not open exceptions about 
this subject.



Another concern i have by their reply is Mapbox teams dictating how and 
when the attribution must be displayed. This being said, i start to 
believe we should remove the 50% exception (how would we actually know 
if it's 51% OSM or 49%?), because it will be used as a loophole to avoid 
the attribution. Fatmap example is a perfect of Christoph concern about 
corporate usage. We shouldn't place our data/derivate with attribution 
with the same usage of paid map data/derivates that is not subject to 
attribution if paid for.


It's just another example to the long list of example of Strava, 
Facebook, Instagram, Vimeo Livestream (Mapbox client, that has their 
legal dept checking if they should attribute or not) and more that are 
using OSM without attributing at all. As i have shared on other lists, 
_*it's a shame*_ most of these lack of attribution examples i gave comes 
first or second handed from corporate members of OSMF (Facebook and 
Mapbox). Up until they give an example of how to be good citizens of 
OSM, these guidelines won't solve the issue. For months, both of these 
companies have been silence about it and OSMF board too. Which results 
in the lack of attribution being a "normal thing", when it's not.


Sadly i'm starting to believe these lack of attribution will only be 
solved once a contributor (individual or a national agency that provided 
data to OSM under the license) sues one of these companies. As we know 
as soon as someone does not comply with the license (or formally 
informed by the licensor) it's rights are terminated. If a contributor 
wants to sue for their content that they licensed to OSMF to be 
distributed only under ODbL, they are legit to take action. If this 
occurs, i fear it will damage OSM/OSMF image and fear of usage of data. 
which is not what we want and will affect OSMF OBJECTS 
. 
All of it can be avoided by simply doing what's on the license, instead 
of arguing if it should or not attribute open data that they are using 
for free without crediting.


Mea culpa as i also helped on this guidance. We do need to improve it, 
so feel free to suggest, share concerns.




Às 12:06 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

I am strongly against this in the current form because it addresses none
of the major issues about corporate attribution of OSM (or lack
thereof).

1) It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution
(i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service or
the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more
prominently than OSM.  The '50 percent rule' you invented:

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of
the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate
page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."

is ridiculous because 50 percent of the map area being functionally
empty is essentially a property of most maps, in particular at large
scales or high zoom levels.  There is no basis in the ODbL for allowing
attribution in a case where attribution is required that is
not "reasonably calculated to make any person [...] aware".  Therefore
i would consider that rule in clear violation of the license.

And frankly it also contradicts the fundamental self-image of the mapper
community.  As has been discussed plenty of times the way geodata is
generated in OSM is fundamentally different from other geodata sources.
While elsewhere people generating geodata are almost always rewarded
for their work also in other form (like salery) in OSM the only
recognition mappers receive from external data users is the attribution
required by the

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we 
> would appreciate feedback on.

This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.

Two small wording clarifications:

"If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the
visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page
that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."

This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map
rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to
clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say)
Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land.

"It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as
it is initially fully visible"

This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated
mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a
second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app
which I would otherwise recommend).

cheers
Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

2019-08-09 Thread Yves

Hi Simon,
This guideline is a great piece of work, thanks a lot to all the participants.
Inevitably, this will be too much or not enough for anybody, however I find the 
content reasonable and in line with what I understood from current written 
expectations.
A few more mockups, notably for minimaps and apps would be great.
After all the text is clear enough and I would find the "yes, but we want to 
let the designer some freedom" argument a bit hypocritical.
Yves 

Le 9 août 2019 09:41:25 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole  a écrit :
>As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
>last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document
>and
>address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
>years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
>parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
>we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
>minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
>provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
>something different. 
>
>We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
>largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
>make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at
>SotM
>next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a
>coffee
>break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
>the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
>appreciate feedback on.
>
>Simon
>
>PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
>another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update