Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

[Simon Poole]

The ODbL (like for example the CC licences too) does not allow
sub-licencing and stipulates that every licensee is licensed directly by
the OSMF.

Am 13.06.2019 um 19:10 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira
> mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> [...] OSMF is the licensor [...]
>
>
> Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not
> get their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox.
> Mapbox got their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their
> OSM derivative database and produced works as vector tiles and static
> map images via their APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the
> responsibility of Mapbox to notify Facebook that FB is not in
> compliance with the ODbL.
>
> However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF
> bypassing Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a
> valid legal avenue to pursue attribution violations.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

[Nuno Caldeira]

Eugene I already pointed that to Mapbox that some of their clients are not
complying with ODbL and even their terms of service. They didn't reply
either.
Mapbox TOS https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/

Text attribution

The text attribution contains at least three links: © Mapbox, ©
OpenStreetMap and Improve this map. This attribution is strictly required
when using the Mapbox Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source
ODbL license. Some other Mapbox-provided tilesets require additional
attribution which is stored in the TileJSON of the tileset.
When do you have to provide attribution?

Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both
the Mapbox wordmark and text attribution. This includes:

Maps using a Mapbox template style such as Mapbox Streets, Mapbox
Outdoors or Mapbox Light, or a style derived from those styles.
Maps using a Mapbox tileset, such as Mapbox Streets, Mapbox Terrain,
and Mapbox Satellite.

You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style
or custom data hosted by Mapbox. (This is the case for most maps built with
Mapbox Studio.) If you do not use Mapbox designs or data supplied by
Mapbox, you may omit text attribution.

If your map does not use Mapbox designs, data, hosting, or other Mapbox
APIs, Mapbox does not require you to provide attribution in either form.



A quinta, 13/06/2019, 18:10, Eugene Alvin Villar 
escreveu:

> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] OSMF is the licensor [...]
>>
>
> Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not get
> their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. Mapbox got
> their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their OSM derivative
> database and produced works as vector tiles and static map images via their
> APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the responsibility of Mapbox to
> notify Facebook that FB is not in compliance with the ODbL.
>
> However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF bypassing
> Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a valid legal
> avenue to pursue attribution violations.
>
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> [...] OSMF is the licensor [...]
>

Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not get
their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. Mapbox got
their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their OSM derivative
database and produced works as vector tiles and static map images via their
APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the responsibility of Mapbox to
notify Facebook that FB is not in compliance with the ODbL.

However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF bypassing
Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a valid legal
avenue to pursue attribution violations.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

[Nuno Caldeira]

Martin, i obviously agree about the usage of usage data, that's the point
of OpenStreetMap. Makes me proud to see it being used more and more as an
alternative of Google. But the license has requirements that must be
fulfill.

I know they are already in breach, however as pointed on 9.4 c), the
licensor (OSMF) must notify them to be considered permanetly terminated.
they are not complying with the license neither with the guidelines that
OSMF have set and made public. When we adopted ODbL, im sure 9.4 c) was
evaluated,despite you mentioning its not OSMF duty to pursue license
violations, however OSMF is the licensor and ODbL mentions the Licensor can
permanently terminate the license. As I, as a contributor have requested
multiple times, pointed out the copyright page, the license and the
guidelines as they keep ignoring, this is the only solution for them to
have their license permanetly terminated, unless they comply in 30 days
after being notified.

A quarta, 12/06/2019, 12:02, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escreveu:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9. Jun 2019, at 15:45, Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
> >.
> > As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to
> comply. They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing
> this on the mailing list.
>
>
> I guess you are expecting a reply from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation
> board of directors or them publicly taking a position? Because this is
> the n+1th time that unsatisfactory attribution (or completely missing
> in the case of mini maps) by Facebook is raised here, and AFAIR there
> was never an official statement by the board (members of the board may
> have replied individually and with personal statements). I would
> really welcome a clear statement from board, or at least one that
> explains that board members have different opinions on this, or why it
> takes them so long to say anything about it.
>
> People have contributed to OSM under the Contributor Terms, where OSMF
> acknowledged they would only distribute the data under the ODbL or
> another free and open license chosen by the active contributors. Not
> pursuing license violations (and not even attempting to do anything
> against it) is against the spirit of the whole license idea and raises
> questions about the validity of the Contributor Terms agreement.
>
> As you have cited, for the abusers the situation is defined in the
> license text, "9.0 Termination of Your rights under this License", and
> by using the OSM data without attribution (as confirmed also by
> Facebook in the email you have shared), their license is already
> terminated, no notification necessary ("9.1 Any breach by You of the
> terms and conditions of this License automatically terminates this
> License with immediate effect and without notice to You.").
> On the other hand, I believe most of us are not interested in
> terminating the use of our data by them, we are happy for everyone
> using it, it is the purpose of the project to create useful data. What
> we want is simply the required attribution. Noone can use a
> substantial part of the db without giving attribution.
>
> In some way it is also in the interest of any of our data users that
> there is attribution to OSM, because if the OSM community grows, it
> will result in more accurate and up to date map data.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jun 2019, at 15:45, Nuno Caldeira  wrote:
>
> As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to comply. 
> They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing this on 
> the mailing list.


I guess you are expecting a reply from the OpenStreetMap-Foundation
board of directors or them publicly taking a position? Because this is
the n+1th time that unsatisfactory attribution (or completely missing
in the case of mini maps) by Facebook is raised here, and AFAIR there
was never an official statement by the board (members of the board may
have replied individually and with personal statements). I would
really welcome a clear statement from board, or at least one that
explains that board members have different opinions on this, or why it
takes them so long to say anything about it.

People have contributed to OSM under the Contributor Terms, where OSMF
acknowledged they would only distribute the data under the ODbL or
another free and open license chosen by the active contributors. Not
pursuing license violations (and not even attempting to do anything
against it) is against the spirit of the whole license idea and raises
questions about the validity of the Contributor Terms agreement.

As you have cited, for the abusers the situation is defined in the
license text, "9.0 Termination of Your rights under this License", and
by using the OSM data without attribution (as confirmed also by
Facebook in the email you have shared), their license is already
terminated, no notification necessary ("9.1 Any breach by You of the
terms and conditions of this License automatically terminates this
License with immediate effect and without notice to You.").
On the other hand, I believe most of us are not interested in
terminating the use of our data by them, we are happy for everyone
using it, it is the purpose of the project to create useful data. What
we want is simply the required attribution. Noone can use a
substantial part of the db without giving attribution.

In some way it is also in the interest of any of our data users that
there is attribution to OSM, because if the OSM community grows, it
will result in more accurate and up to date map data.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

yes, exactly the same happens on Android as I pointed out on this tweet
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1131190612529688577?s=09

A quarta, 12/06/2019, 08:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escreveu:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 12. Jun 2019, at 00:38, Nuno Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
> So their believe is *"map "previews" as the map in preview form isn't
> very informative"*. Well if it isn't do not use it on the first place.
> ODbL is clear, "any Person that uses, *views*", i do not have to interact
> with to acknowledge the notice.
>
>
>
> there is also a factual error, because when I clicked on the small map
> from OpenStreetMap my device opened an Apple map (on iOS, probably on
> Android it would have been a goog map), there wasn’t attribution to the
> former map on which I clicked.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Jun 2019, at 00:38, Nuno Caldeira  wrote:
> 
> So their believe is "map "previews" as the map in preview form isn't very 
> informative". Well if it isn't do not use it on the first place. ODbL is 
> clear, "any Person that uses, views", i do not have to interact with to 
> acknowledge the notice.


there is also a factual error, because when I clicked on the small map from 
OpenStreetMap my device opened an Apple map (on iOS, probably on Android it 
would have been a goog map), there wasn’t attribution to the former map on 
which I clicked.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

Christoph i have well documented them and sent them to Facebook via 
email on October the 10th 2018 after receiving their reply on the 9th of 
October of my initial email on the 10th of September 2018. On December 
the 6th 2018 i asked what was the status or a reply to my email on the 
10th of October, they never replied to those two emails, guess my 
"suggestions" weren't valued. I can share these emails publicly as *.eml 
if you doubt as see the screenshots of examples i sent.


Here's Facebook reply to my email on the 9th of October 2018:


Hello Nuno,

Thank for bringing this up. This was going to a legal review because 
we take community suggestions very seriously and we’ve looked into the 
issues you’ve raised. We don’t currently have attribution on the map 
“previews” as the map in preview form isn’t very informative and the 
intent is that users will click into the experience to actually make 
use of the map. Once a user clicks on the map, the attribution 
experience is readily available.  I believe that this is the approach 
taken by many services which offer a map feature.


With respect to the use of the “i” indicating attribution, we 
understand that may others in the industry have adopted a similar 
approach –most likely to address the limited map real estate and the 
multiple sources of attribution.  We believe that it’s common 
knowledge that additional information, including license information 
related to the mapping feature, can be accessed by clicking the “i.”  
This appears to be common industry practice and reasonably calculated 
to make users aware that OSM is a contributor of a map.


Again, we thank you for your suggestions, and we value our partnership 
with the OSM community.


Best,

Drishtie Patel on behalf of the OSM Maps Team at Facebook


So their believe is /"map "previews" as the map in preview form isn't 
very informative"/. Well if it isn't do not use it on the first place. 
ODbL is clear, "any Person that uses, _views_", i do not have to 
interact with to acknowledge the notice.


"we understand that may others in the industry have adopted a similar 
approach" so all others are doing it wrong, we are entitled to do so. 
That's why lack of attribution is becoming more and more often, because 
of this kind of thought.


They do value partnership but not comply with 4.3 of ODbL and OSMF on 
the license and attribution.


Their legal review is almost 9 months old and from the lack of 
compliance, wonder what it was.



How many map view has facebook per day of OSM data? How many Facebook 
users could have been aware of what OpenStreetMap is? How many new 
contributors could have join OSM?


We must not allow this kind of behaviour, interpretation of ODbL and 
especially have corporate members that have this kind of behaviour.




Às 09:38 de 10/06/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Monday 10 June 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the
influence the OSM community has in principle.  It is certainly much
larger than that of the OSMF.  It might be convenient to just say
"we can't do anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly
tries to cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable
but that is definitely not the case.

Can you propose anything specific that for  example I can do,?

In general raising public awareness is one of the most efficient
measures about this kind of thing.  We have for example so far not even
a proper documentation of the various situations in which Facebook
shows OSM based maps to their users without proper attribution.

Once this exists a good next step would be to approach business partners
of Facebook, in particular ones who are interested and depend on having
a good relationship with OSM and publicly ask them (via Twitter for
example) why they are cooperating with a company that systematically
violates the OSM license.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Yves]

I had to read the 2013 (wow!) thread again. '(c)OSM' on small devices would 
have legal issues as well, I guess, but maybe not as many.
Anyway, speaking of legal issues, I don't think this is like if we ever took a 
lot of legal actions concerning attribution...
Yves 

Le 10 juin 2019 21:56:14 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole  a écrit :
>
>Am 10.06.2019 um 21:05 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier:
>> On 6/10/19 5:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Yves >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I think a small '(c)OSM' for small screen web or app could be
>>> suggested as OK, what do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not revive this dormant proposal for a small attribution logo
>>> that was proposed 6 years
>>> ago:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark
>>> 
>> I have always wondered why it did not get more attention... 
>
>Because of legal issues with both the proposed logo and using it as a
>replacement for "OpenStreetMap" for attribution purposes that have been
>mentioned more than once (it should be noted by the way that neither
>the
>goog or Mapbox use anything else than their full name for attribution).
>
>Simon
>
>> But I'm not the target audience. So, do we have feedback from web
>> designers - the population who this proposal aims to convince to
>> attribute properly ?
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Simon Poole]

Am 10.06.2019 um 21:05 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier:
> On 6/10/19 5:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Yves > > wrote:
>>
>> I think a small '(c)OSM' for small screen web or app could be
>> suggested as OK, what do you think?
>>
>>
>> Why not revive this dormant proposal for a small attribution logo
>> that was proposed 6 years
>> ago:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark
>> 
> I have always wondered why it did not get more attention... 

Because of legal issues with both the proposed logo and using it as a
replacement for "OpenStreetMap" for attribution purposes that have been
mentioned more than once (it should be noted by the way that neither the
goog or Mapbox use anything else than their full name for attribution).

Simon

> But I'm not the target audience. So, do we have feedback from web
> designers - the population who this proposal aims to convince to
> attribute properly ?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 6/10/19 10:02 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

10 Jun 2019, 01:10 by j...@liotier.org:

This negotiation belongs to the OSMF.

Negotiation? Rather DMCA takedown notice. There is
no reason at all for negotiation.


Even if the goal is full conformance to strictest interpretation of the 
Openstreetmap terms, how & when the infringer will move towards it 
necessitates a dialog - which has all the attributes of a negotiation. 
Deter first, then talk.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 6/10/19 5:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Yves > wrote:


I think a small '(c)OSM' for small screen web or app could be
suggested as OK, what do you think?


Why not revive this dormant proposal for a small attribution logo that 
was proposed 6 years 
ago:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark 

I have always wondered why it did not get more attention... But I'm not 
the target audience. So, do we have feedback from web designers - the 
population who this proposal aims to convince to attribute properly ?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Yves  wrote:

> I think a small '(c)OSM' for small screen web or app could be suggested as
> OK, what do you think?
>

Why not revive this dormant proposal for a small attribution logo that was
proposed 6 years ago:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RFC_Attribution_Mark

If you have a small logo such as this (that would not look out of place
against similar logos like Google's, Mapbox's or Bing's), there is even
less reason not to attribute OSM.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Yves]

Would that be a first step to remove their logo or shame them a (little bit) on 
the pages they are mentioned as sponsors? That should be a call from the Sotm 
WG, though.
In any case, not being a fb user, I miss a proper case with a few screenshots 
being build on the wiki.
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Yves]

I think a small '(c)OSM' for small screen web or app could be suggested as OK, 
what do you think?
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 10 June 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the
> > influence the OSM community has in principle.  It is certainly much
> > larger than that of the OSMF.  It might be convenient to just say
> > "we can't do anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly
> > tries to cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable
> > but that is definitely not the case.
>
> Can you propose anything specific that for  example I can do,?

In general raising public awareness is one of the most efficient 
measures about this kind of thing.  We have for example so far not even 
a proper documentation of the various situations in which Facebook 
shows OSM based maps to their users without proper attribution.  

Once this exists a good next step would be to approach business partners 
of Facebook, in particular ones who are interested and depend on having 
a good relationship with OSM and publicly ask them (via Twitter for 
example) why they are cooperating with a company that systematically 
violates the OSM license.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jun 2019, at 02:23, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> Nuno - On a Facebook Android app I checked [1] they also use the "i" symbol 
> with a link to our attribution. I agree that they could do better, when the 
> map is opened up there is space for proper attribution but they only give a 
> very dim "i" symbol, but it is attributed.


yes, mapbox small screen attribution is generally an issue. The reason they do 
not have or believe they do not have sufficient space for attribution is that 
they use a quite long string:
“(c) mapbox (c) OpenStreetMap Improve this map”.
MB could, on small screens, waive the textual MB attribution requirement 
(because there is already a mapbox image logo), and also the “Improve this 
Map”-link (or expand both on hover/tap), and there would be sufficient space 
for an always visible (c) OpenStreetMap (plus the mapbox logo).
Or make it 2 rows as fits.
Or hide the Mapbox attribution logo behind a click-to-show-“i”   ;-)

It is not a technical restriction that MB doesn’t show the expanded 
attribution, it is rather a result of the other UI choices they made.



> On the website, the map is actually very small.


the license doesn’t limit attribution requirements to bigger map sizes, they 
could put an attribution string below the map if they don’t want it on the map 
for legibility reasons.
If these small maps were limited to one or two instances they would probably be 
ok under the substantial guideline, but as there are literally hundreds of 
millions or even billions of them, we should not let them pass as is.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Jun 2019, 01:38 by o...@imagico.de:

> As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the influence 
> the OSM community has in principle.  It is certainly much larger than 
> that of the OSMF.  It might be convenient to just say "we can't do 
> anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly tries to 
> cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable but that is 
> definitely not the case.
>
Can you propose anything specific that for  example I can do,?

I though about DMCA takedown notices for event pages that display
maps where I substantially contributed, but I am not sure whatever
I am allowed to do this.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Mateusz Konieczny]

It is still violation of ODBL to include barely visible "attribution" that will 
be missed by
a typical person.

"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."

10 Jun 2019, 02:23 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:

> Nuno - On a Facebook Android app I checked [1] they also use the "i" symbol 
> with a link to our attribution. I agree that they could do better, when the 
> map is opened up there is space for proper attribution but they only give a 
> very dim "i" symbol, but it is attributed. On the website, the map is 
> actually very small.
>
> I am located in the US and this isn't my Facebook App since I no longer have 
> a FB account. 
>
> [1]  > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/EpH8we2PW5pTbfS 
> 
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:45 PM Nuno Caldeira <> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> They do not. 
>>
>>
>> Examples: >> https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1131190612529688577 
>> 
>>
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/recommendations 
>> >>  thosemap previews 
>> contains OSM data and there's no attribution.
>>
>>
>> It gets worst if you use their apps (iOS,Android or Windows app)
>>
>>
>> And as i mentioned this is not about how theyattribute, that's a 
>> whole different thing. It's them notcomplying with the license. 
>> Point me a facebook page where theyhave ODbL database notice as 
>> requested on 4.2 c).
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> @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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Jun 2019, 01:10 by j...@liotier.org:

> This negotiation belongs to the OSMF.
>
Negotiation? Rather DMCA takedown notice[1]. There is
no reason at all for negotiation.

[1] Or something more powerful if available.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Clifford Snow]

Nuno - On a Facebook Android app I checked [1] they also use the "i" symbol
with a link to our attribution. I agree that they could do better, when the
map is opened up there is space for proper attribution but they only give a
very dim "i" symbol, but it is attributed. On the website, the map is
actually very small.

I am located in the US and this isn't my Facebook App since I no longer
have a FB account.

[1]  https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/EpH8we2PW5pTbfS




On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:45 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> They do not.
>
> Examples: https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1131190612529688577
>
> https://www.facebook.com/recommendations those map previews contains OSM
> data and there's no attribution.
>
> It gets worst if you use their apps (iOS, Android or Windows app)
>
> And as i mentioned this is not about how they attribute, that's a whole
> different thing. It's them not complying with the license. Point me a
> facebook page where they have ODbL database notice as requested on 4.2 c).
>
> --
@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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 10 June 2019, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> >
> > * cease using Facebook [..]
>
> A drop in the ocean.

As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the influence 
the OSM community has in principle.  It is certainly much larger than 
that of the OSMF.  It might be convenient to just say "we can't do 
anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly tries to 
cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable but that is 
definitely not the case.

> This negotiation belongs to the OSMF.

If there is one thing the OSMF definitely must not do it is to negotiate 
with corporations like Facebook about to what extent they must follow 
the license.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 6/10/19 12:10 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

No one should underestimage the amount of pressure the OSM community
could put [..] if all active OSM
contributors would

* cease using Facebook [..]


A drop in the ocean.

This negotiation belongs to the OSMF.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Christoph Hormann]

To be clear:  I would very much welcome it if the board states that they 
welcome activities from the OSM community pushing organizational OSM 
data users for following the license and supporting people organizing 
pressure on them to do so.  But from past experience with board members 
articulating themselves on this kind of matter i would not expect much 
here though (but would be happy to be positively surprised).

One particular case i have pointed out on several occasions is the 
matter of second rate attributions.  A clear statement that if anyone 
is credited in any way for a map using OSM data OSM contributors need 
to be attributed with at least the same prominence and visibility would 
be immensely helpful.  Clear statements are important because nothing 
is more annoying than data users attempting to weasel around 
attribution requirements.  In my experience when contacting data users 
about insufficient attribution at least 2/3 of the communication is 
dealing with petty attempts at bargaining for less attribution.

> I don't know what your position is in these matters; but
> actually cataloguing license violations, sending the appropriate
> legal nastygrams to the appropriate legal entities in the appropriate
> countries and all that, is certainly something that can occupy one
> employee full time - an employee where the OSMF would likely depend
> on corporate members like Facebook to pay their salary. So we have to
> be careful with what we demand from the OSMF.

That publishing something on the internet inevitably results in people 
ripping you off (including in particular big corporations and 
organizations) and that you can spend more time (and could possibly 
even make more money) pursuing such than by actually producing things 
is essentially a fact of life.

The situation for OSM is a bit different though since allowing others on 
a large scale to ignore the ODbL essentially nullifies the social 
contract of OSM and leads to the project loosing contributors (all 
those who consider their contributions to be contingent to attribution 
and share-alike being given back to them by data users).

I think making sure that this does not happen should be done through 
volunteer work but the OSMF could do quite a lot without investing a 
lot of work to support this simply by making clear that the OSMF stands 
firmly behind any OSM community members who act on such cases (in a 
friendly and supportive way to first time offenders but with firm 
pressure on unregenerate repeat offenders).

There are tons of very simple things the OSMF could do to to indicate 
their support.  Removing data users with no proper attribution from

https://welcome.openstreetmap.org/about-osm-community/consumers/

for example.

No one should underestimage the amount of pressure the OSM community 
could put on large data users who don't abide by the license.  I 
already indicated this is pure theory but how long do you think it 
would take Facebook to become a model ODbL data user if all active OSM 
contributors would

* cease using Facebook
* stop any cooperation with Facebook within the project
* revert any edits made by mappers working for Facebook or for projects 
being financed by Facebook?

IMO ultimately key is that everyone internalizes that being lenient on 
sustained license violations is not a way to support adoption of OSM as 
a data source but primarily a way to alienate huge parts of the 
contributor base.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

Frederik, i'm well aware of LWG making a better guide regarding the 
attribution. This does not have to do with the way they attribute. It's 
about the license.


And i'm not asking the board to sue Facebook, what i'm asking is to 
notify them they are in breach of ODbL, as their are not fulfilling the 
terms and conditions of the license. This means if in 30 days after they 
receive the notice, they are in permanently breach of the license. Only 
OSMF as the licensor can do that.



Às 21:31 de 09/06/2019, Frederik Ramm escreveu:

Hi,

On 09.06.19 20:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:

I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter
but i would not expect substantial actions from there.

The board has received the message and I'm sure it will be discussed
internally in due course.

It might be worth noting that LWG are working on improved attribution
guidelines
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10#Update_attribution_guidance)
and perhaps it makes sense to delay any drastic action until these are
ready. I don't expect any big changes (basic requirements of the license
are not up for discussion) but perhaps some useful clarifications.


And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well,
as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.

Be that as it may, but there's also another thing to keep in mind: The
OSMF board doesn't have an army of eager workers at their fingertips
whom we can task with something. As you know, there's always discussion
about enlarging the organisation, hiring more staff, hiring an executive
director (which OSM US have done with much fanfare) etc., and as you
also know, I am usually against such "OSMF inflation". I don't know what
your position is in these matters; but actually cataloguing license
violations, sending the appropriate legal nastygrams to the appropriate
legal entities in the appropriate countries and all that, is certainly
something that can occupy one employee full time - an employee where the
OSMF would likely depend on corporate members like Facebook to pay their
salary. So we have to be careful with what we demand from the OSMF.

As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might be required
for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of "direct
action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
*that* big for most.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

They do not.

Examples: https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1131190612529688577

https://www.facebook.com/recommendations those map previews contains OSM 
data and there's no attribution.


It gets worst if you use their apps (iOS, Android or Windows app)

And as i mentioned this is not about how they attribute, that's a whole 
different thing. It's them not complying with the license. Point me a 
facebook page where they have ODbL database notice as requested on 4.2 c).



Às 22:36 de 09/06/2019, Clifford Snow escreveu:
Facebook does attribute using the "I" symbol as does Mapbox. Is that 
the issue?



On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:


9 Jun 2019, 22:31 by frede...@remote.org :

As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might
be required
for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of
"direct
action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
*that* big for most

I would be happy to spend some real effort here but my
investigation concluded
that OSMF would need to act and I found no useful things that I
can do.

Can you recommend something that I can do to increase chance that
Facebook will cease to violating OSM license?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Clifford Snow]

Facebook does attribute using the "I" symbol as does Mapbox. Is that the
issue?


On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 2:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 9 Jun 2019, 22:31 by frede...@remote.org:
>
> As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might be required
> for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of "direct
> action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
> *that* big for most
>
> I would be happy to spend some real effort here but my investigation
> concluded
> that OSMF would need to act and I found no useful things that I can do.
>
> Can you recommend something that I can do to increase chance that
> Facebook will cease to violating OSM license?
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
@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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Jun 2019, 22:31 by frede...@remote.org:

> As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might be required
> for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of "direct
> action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
> *that* big for most
>
I would be happy to spend some real effort here but my investigation concluded
that OSMF would need to act and I found no useful things that I can do.

Can you recommend something that I can do to increase chance that
Facebook will cease to violating OSM license?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09.06.19 20:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter 
> but i would not expect substantial actions from there.

The board has received the message and I'm sure it will be discussed
internally in due course.

It might be worth noting that LWG are working on improved attribution
guidelines
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10#Update_attribution_guidance)
and perhaps it makes sense to delay any drastic action until these are
ready. I don't expect any big changes (basic requirements of the license
are not up for discussion) but perhaps some useful clarifications.

> And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members 
> having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well, 
> as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.

Be that as it may, but there's also another thing to keep in mind: The
OSMF board doesn't have an army of eager workers at their fingertips
whom we can task with something. As you know, there's always discussion
about enlarging the organisation, hiring more staff, hiring an executive
director (which OSM US have done with much fanfare) etc., and as you
also know, I am usually against such "OSMF inflation". I don't know what
your position is in these matters; but actually cataloguing license
violations, sending the appropriate legal nastygrams to the appropriate
legal entities in the appropriate countries and all that, is certainly
something that can occupy one employee full time - an employee where the
OSMF would likely depend on corporate members like Facebook to pay their
salary. So we have to be careful with what we demand from the OSMF.

As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might be required
for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of "direct
action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not
*that* big for most.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 09 June 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
> > And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board
> > members having ties to big organizational OSM data
> > users/contributors ... well, as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt
> > der anderen kein Auge aus.
>
> Are those ties public? Are they connected to any of the corporate
> members of OSMF?

To some extent this is documented on

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios

but this is not always up-to-date and does not necessarily contain all 
the details.

Note corporate OSMF membership does not currently come with any 
behaviour requirements so it is not really that relevant here.  We had 
some time ago a bit of discussion though on osmf-talk about if there 
should be rules related to corporate OSMF membership:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-January/005862.html

but this is more about behavioural rules.  The requirement to comply 
with the license (which is something every OSMF data users has to do) 
is not something that makes sense to specifically ask from corporate 
members.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

Of course the OSM community does not depend on the OSMF to clearly
communicate to Facebook that their insulting behaviour is not
acceptable and that it will cost them a lot more economically in the
long term to continue acting this way than anything they might hope to
gain from it.


We are not talking about a simple company, we are actually talking about 
a company that is a Gold Corporate Member of OSMF and have sponsored a 
few events [1]. So if they are not aware of the license something is 
clearly wrong in "showing their long term support to our organisation" 
and "In doing so they are helping to keep OpenStreetMap's servers 
running, supporting the work of our volunteer working groups, and above 
all showing their support for OpenStreetMap" [2].


source:

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Facebook_(company)

[2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members


And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well,
as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.


Are those ties public? Are they connected to any of the corporate 
members of OSMF?


And quoting 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License


But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with 
commercial interests?


  * You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the
Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a
free and open license.

  * The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license.

  * If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body.

  * If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation.



Às 19:00 de 09/06/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Sunday 09 June 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote:

I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights
under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as
written on ODbL.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter
but i would not expect substantial actions from there.

Although Facebook is an extreme example it is by far not the only case
of big organizational OSM data users and contributors looking down on
the OSM community and its values and doing as they please disregarding
objections to what they do if they consider them unworthy or
insignificant.

And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well,
as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.

Of course the OSM community does not depend on the OSMF to clearly
communicate to Facebook that their insulting behaviour is not
acceptable and that it will cost them a lot more economically in the
long term to continue acting this way than anything they might hope to
gain from it.

But the question is of course if the OSM community as a whole is willing
to stand up to Facebook and others to defend our values.  If you
imagine what percentage of OSM community members are Facebook customers
you might already have your answer.  Or to put it slightly differently:
Why should Facebook even assume that OSM community members are in
anyway displeased with Facebook if they (to a large part) continue
using Facebook?

I mean using Facebook as a communication platform for the OSM community
is even advertised on osm.org (via iD editor and osm-community-index):

https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/search?q=facebook_q=facebook

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 09 June 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
>
> I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
> Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights
> under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as
> written on ODbL.
> https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter 
but i would not expect substantial actions from there.

Although Facebook is an extreme example it is by far not the only case 
of big organizational OSM data users and contributors looking down on 
the OSM community and its values and doing as they please disregarding 
objections to what they do if they consider them unworthy or 
insignificant.

And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members 
having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well, 
as we say in German:  Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus.

Of course the OSM community does not depend on the OSMF to clearly 
communicate to Facebook that their insulting behaviour is not 
acceptable and that it will cost them a lot more economically in the 
long term to continue acting this way than anything they might hope to 
gain from it.

But the question is of course if the OSM community as a whole is willing 
to stand up to Facebook and others to defend our values.  If you 
imagine what percentage of OSM community members are Facebook customers 
you might already have your answer.  Or to put it slightly differently:  
Why should Facebook even assume that OSM community members are in 
anyway displeased with Facebook if they (to a large part) continue 
using Facebook?

I mean using Facebook as a communication platform for the OSM community 
is even advertised on osm.org (via iD editor and osm-community-index):

https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/search?q=facebook_q=facebook

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

I apologize for the signature (my mistake) and asked for the mailing 
list admin to remove it.


This is not a matter on how the attribution must be made, like we 
discussed before in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-February/082136.html, 
it's them not attributing at all.


OSMF is the licensor, as written of 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines



OSMF's role as Licensor and publisher of the database


I have asked Facebook (as a contributor) several times to comply with 
our guidelines and they stopped replying and did not add the attribution 
over the last six months.


As we have moved from CC to ODbL i assume OSMF as the licensor has the 
right and in my opinion must notify the violation of 4.3 under 9.4 c) as 
they just keep ignoring adding the attribution as requested on  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”. 
They do not fit under substantial concept: 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline


The OpenStreetMap community regards the following as being not 
Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the 
extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a 
similar project.


  * Less than 100 Features.
  * More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic
and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an
extract of all the the locations of restaurants you have visited
for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of a
selection of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are
writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. The systematic
extraction of all eating places within an area or at all castles
within an area would be considered to be systematic.
  * The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which
can be a small densely populated area such as a European village
or can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of
the Australian bush with few Features.

Note also that we regard*repeated small extractions as one big 
extraction*!





Às 15:39 de 09/06/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:


9 Jun 2019, 13:08 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

I support efforts to stop large scale violation of OSM license by 
Facebook.


Note
"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."

in https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
that is clearly violated, nearly noone using FB is made aware
that maps are powered by OSM data.

But this attempt is a bit substandard

I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their
rights under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of
notice. as written on ODbL.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

Unfortunately, as far as I know, it is OSMF that must produce this 
notice (I may be mistaken here).


Also, can you consider not including such footer notices in emails 
posted on a public mailing list?


___
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] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Jun 2019, 13:08 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:

I support efforts to stop large scale violation of OSM license by Facebook.

Note 
"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."
in https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html 

that is clearly violated, nearly noone using FB is made aware
that maps are powered by OSM data.

But this attempt is a bit substandard

> I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the Licensor under 
> ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights under ODbL, if the 
> violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as written on ODbL. > 
> https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html 
> 
>
Unfortunately, as far as I know, it is OSMF that must produce this notice (I 
may be mistaken here).

Also, can you consider not including such footer notices in emails posted on a 
public mailing list?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL (Andy Mabbett )

[Nuno Caldeira]

As mentioned on the blog, i already asked facebook several times to comply.
They stopped replying. I'm not expecting a reply, i'm just sharing this on
the mailing list.

About my signature, i apologise as i have written the email on a webclient
that contains that signature. ADMIN please remove the signature

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 12:08, Nuno Caldeira https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>> wrote:

>* To acknowledge,I have asked this to the board.
*>>* Dear board and board members,
*>>* Following my comment on this post
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711

*>>* I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under
*>* ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights under ODbL, if the
*>* violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as written on ODbL.
*
You posted a comment - on a Sunday - less than two hours before
requesting this? Do you not think it would be prudent - not to mention
courteous - to first wait for a response there?

>* Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message
*
Well, quite.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Blake Girardot]

"Warning This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally
privileged information and is intended only for the use of the
intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the
information herein is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be
guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, or
contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is deemed
to have accepted these risks. Company Name is not responsible for
errors or omissions in this message and denies any responsibility for
any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion and other
statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
company."

I have been scolded and ignored in the past for forwarding an email
with this sort of signature to an OSM email.

I was promptly informed this was a public email list and emails with
that type of sig were not welcome.

Regards,
Blake

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:22 AM Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 12:08, Nuno Caldeira  
> wrote:
>
> > To acknowledge,I have asked this to the board.
> >
> > Dear board and board members,
> >
> > Following my comment on this post 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711
> >
> > I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the Licensor 
> > under
> > ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights under ODbL, if the
> > violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as written on ODbL.
>
> You posted a comment - on a Sunday - less than two hours before
> requesting this? Do you not think it would be prudent - not to mention
> courteous - to first wait for a response there?
>
> > Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message
>
> Well, quite.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



-- 

Blake Girardot
OSM Wiki - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bgirardot
HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
skype: jblakegirardot

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 12:08, Nuno Caldeira  wrote:

> To acknowledge,I have asked this to the board.
>
> Dear board and board members,
>
> Following my comment on this post 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711
>
> I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the Licensor under
> ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights under ODbL, if the
> violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as written on ODbL.

You posted a comment - on a Sunday - less than two hours before
requesting this? Do you not think it would be prudent - not to mention
courteous - to first wait for a response there?

> Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message

Well, quite.

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

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

[OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL

[Nuno Caldeira]

To acknowledge,I have asked this to the board.

Dear board and board members,

Following my comment on this post
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711

I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the Licensor
under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights under ODbL, if
the violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as written on ODbL.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

9.0 Termination of Your rights under this License


   c. Permanently if reasonably notified by the Licensor of the
violation, this is the first time You have received notice of
violation of this License from the Licensor, and You cure the
violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.


Kind regards,

Nuno Caldeira
-- 
Nuno Caldeira

nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com

http://www.leavesfromthepresentpast.info/

[image: Facebook]  [image:
Twitter]  [image: Youtube]
 [image: Instagram]
 [image: vimeo]
 [image: flickr]


*AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDADE *Este e-mail e quaisquer ficheiros informáticos
com ele transmitidos são confidenciais, podem conter informação
privilegiada e destinam-se ao conhecimento e uso exclusivo da pessoa ou
entidade a quem são dirigidos, não podendo o conteúdo dos mesmos ser
alterado. Caso tenha recebido este e-mail indevidamente, queira informar de
imediato o remetente e proceder à destruição da mensagem e de eventuais
cópias. É estritamente proibido o uso, a distribuição, a cópia ou qualquer
forma de disseminação não autorizada deste e-mail e de quaisquer ficheiros
nele contidos.

*Warning* This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally
privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended
recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution,
copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein
is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error
free as they can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who
communicates with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks.
Company Name is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and
denies any responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail.
Any opinion and other statement contained in this message and any
attachment are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the company.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk