> Other widespread online mapping services also require this kind of
> *attribution
> on the map*, usually even more prominently (brand logo with much bigger
> size than our textual example).
I'd like to emphasize what I said in the previous messages sent to
this thread - OpenStreetMap is a data
To put this more into context, the facebook page does have a link to
OpenStreetMap behind the faint "i", and the majority of contributors may
eventually see this as reasonable attribution for the small map they
initially show, but it is quite clearly not suitable on the bigger popup
map to make
Am Mo., 27. Apr. 2020 um 19:52 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Oliveira <
rockyt...@gmail.com>:
> Hello!
>
> I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
> OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
>
> According to the wiki page[0]:
>
> > Our requested attribution is "©
Hi,
On 13.05.20 14:33, Simon Poole wrote:
> as obvious from this thread, it
> does confuse people as to what the actual facts are.
I know it is tedious, but this thread could certainly benefit from
someone providing a recap of the facts, i.e. the core points of the
proposed attribution
Hidden button is explicitly allowed on mobile devices by the draft:
"In addition, mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction.
Examples of one interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or
link that opens a pop-up or new webpage, or a swipe, drag, pinch, etc."
from
Am 13.05.2020 um 13:46 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
...
> And, no, a typical user will not click on a hidden button or check
> deeply in settings.
>
...
Nobody ever even remotely indicated that attribution via a "hidden
button" or deep in any settings was sufficient, in fact the draft
May 13, 2020, 12:39 by si...@poole.ch:
>
>
>
> Am 12.05.2020 um 23:03 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 12, 2020, 05:48 by >> rockyt...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> As Joseph said:
>>>
The attribution goes on the map.
This is not a difficult requirement to
Am 12.05.2020 um 23:03 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>
>
>
> May 12, 2020, 05:48 by rockyt...@gmail.com:
>
>
> As Joseph said:
>
> The attribution goes on the map.
> This is not a difficult requirement to meet.
>
>
> The most recent version of the guidelines
>
May 12, 2020, 05:48 by rockyt...@gmail.com:
>>
>>
> As Joseph said:
>
>> The attribution goes on the map.
>> This is not a difficult requirement to meet.
>>
>
>
>> The most recent version of the guidelines
>> drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community criticism
>> about being
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does
> not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the
> copyright
> page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under ODbL for a
> map that has multiple data sources, then
On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:01, Kathleen Lu via talk
wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does
> not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the
> copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:14 AM Alexandre Oliveira
wrote:
> > Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo
> from Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It
> would be quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make
> keeping
On 02.05.20 16:54, Yves wrote:
IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association
change would be preferable to really have a more representative idea
of the contributor feelings. Could the OSMF set up such a process?
Some of the attributions cases are certainly simple enough
On Saturday 02 May 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> >> The only time in the past this
> >
> >was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC.
>
> That is not correct, the licence change process has never been
> invoked.
Yes, sorry - the contributor terms were created as part of the move from
Am 2. Mai 2020 15:44:33 MESZ schrieb Christoph Hormann :
>
>> The only time in the past this
>was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC.
That is not correct, the licence change process has never been invoked.
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten
I was thinking of a, b, c,... as different use cases of attribution.
Le 2 mai 2020 17:35:47 GMT+02:00, Mario Frasca a écrit :
>On 02/05/2020 09:54, Yves wrote:
>> IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association
>change would be preferable to really have a more
On 02/05/2020 09:54, Yves wrote:
IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association change
would be preferable to really have a more representative idea of the
contributor feelings. Could the OSMF set up such a process?
only related to the voting method, what method is
Le 2 mai 2020 16:21:33 GMT+02:00, "Rory McCann (OSMF Board)"
a écrit :
>On 02.05.20 14:01, Yves wrote:
>> Could somebody enlight me about the new Attribution Guidelines
>process?
>> How it is envisioned to adopt the document that is currently worked
>> upon? A vote, a decision for the board,
On 02.05.20 14:01, Yves wrote:
Could somebody enlight me about the new Attribution Guidelines process?
How it is envisioned to adopt the document that is currently worked
upon? A vote, a decision for the board, or else?
The OSMF Board to vote on it/something, making it “The Attribution
On Saturday 02 May 2020, Yves wrote:
>
> Also, what is this relicencing mentioned in the LWG minutes?
This refers to the idea of initiating a license change process.
The license change process is described in the contributor terms:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms
With Christoph adding a counterpoint to the draft guideline from February, the
LWG minutes evoking a topic about relicencing, I'm a bit lost.
Could somebody enlight me about the new Attribution Guidelines process? How it
is envisioned to adopt the document that is currently worked upon? A vote,
On Thursday 30 April 2020, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> The most recent version of
> the guidelines drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn
> community criticism about being too generous especially w.r.t.
> initially hidden attribution.
Wow, that is quite a weird statement considering how
> Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo from
> Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It would be
> quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make keeping that
> logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles.
> Mapbox
sent from a phone
> On 30. Apr 2020, at 17:20, Tom Lee via talk wrote:
>
> But I do think they are a useful signal as we consider what "reasonable"
> could mean.
regarding the license, it clearly says reasonably calculated to make any
person aware, however unreasonable someone might find
The source linked, for village boundaries in India, requires printed
attribution on the map or a link for online maps:
“Attribute
Please use the following lines to attribute the maps if you use in your
work. You could link instead of printing the URLs in case of web projects.
Villages Maps
Hi Alexandre,
it's true that too many projects using OSM do not provide the required
attribution. However, I'm surprised that you got reactions of
"this is fine" for some of the more egregious examples you mention in
your email. While individual mappers will of course hold a wide range of
At the risk of repeating others' words, I strongly encourage participants
in this conversation to review the draft attribution guideline (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline) and
previous conversations regarding attribution on this list. It would be hard
to overstate
sent from a phone
> On 29. Apr 2020, at 23:17, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo from
> Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It would be
> quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:22, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you
> can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what
> Martin quoted as:
>
> „You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably
>
You and Alexandre are correct that Google does not (usually) allow you to
use their data off of their platform. According to Google's Terms, you
usually cannot use just the data and not the tile server. Google does,
however, make exceptions for paying customers.
Mapbox also has a whitelabling
Apr 28, 2020, 06:48 by si...@poole.ch:
>
> Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
>> OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
>>
> There was just a (nearly 100 messages) long thread on
Am Mi., 29. Apr. 2020 um 04:05 Uhr schrieb Kathleen Lu <
kathleen...@mapbox.com>:
> I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
> indication of what is reasonable.
> ...After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider
> that required data attribution as
On Wednesday 29 April 2020, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote:
> [...]
> After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider
> that required data attribution as prominently as the FAQ suggests.
> Industry standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation
> of what is
> I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good indication
> of what is reasonable.
> If someone is hitting OSM's tile server, then that would be the industry
> equivalent of using Google or HERE's API, for which they typically require
> on-map logo attribution.
> For using
I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
indication of what is reasonable.
If someone is hitting OSM's tile server, then that would be the industry
equivalent of using Google or HERE's API, for which they typically require
on-map logo attribution.
For using *data* from
sent from a phone
> On 28. Apr 2020, at 23:34, Kathleen Lu via talk
> wrote:
>
> The FAQ is not the license. The license is the ODbL. The ODbL says absolutely
> nothing about whether attribution should be on a map or not. Read it here:
> https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/index.html
It’s a database technically, but it’s a database purpose-built for making
maps. Hence the name OpenStreetMap.
The attribution goes on the map.
This is not a difficult requirement to meet.
—Joseph Eisenberg
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
> the header of the code, that's the place where the attribution is expected.
>
> roughly equivalent to some corner in the displayed map, that's what the
> license says, right?
>
I do not think these two things are at all equivalent. OSM is a database,
so the equivalent attribution notice to the
On 28/04/2020 15:01, Kathleen Lu wrote:
I know no major open source license that requires attribution *in the
UI that the user sees without clicking on anything*.
oh, but thinking of code I don't particularly care about the UI.
I care about the code, and if I release some code as GPL, you as
I find this view quite surprising coming from a software engineer.
I know no major open source license that requires attribution *in the UI
that the user sees without clicking on anything*.
Every example of open source license attribution I have seen is after
several clicks, e.g.
for what it matters, I completely subscribe Skyler's position.
I'm a software engineer, and I produce GPL and AGPL software (not LGPL),
but I do not have the power to enforce anything, I just hope that people
will be considerate.
it's surprising that the lax attitude comes from a committee
Am Di., 28. Apr. 2020 um 06:51 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :
>
> Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
> > OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
> >
> There was just a (nearly 100
Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira:
> Hello!
>
> I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
> OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
>
There was just a (nearly 100 messages) long thread on the subject here
not to mention a longish consultation
As a new contributor, and a software engineer, it is surprising to learn that
there is such a lax attitude towards lack of attribution. Every open source
software license I can think of has attribution as a central tenet. People
spend their free time on this stuff, and they do it because they
Hello!
I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
According to the wiki page[0]:
> Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".
> You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open
>
46 matches
Mail list logo
