On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:02 AM, Jiri Vlasak wrote:
> +1. I feel that "contributors" should stay in the credit.
+1 here, as well. I correctly and not with excessive overt pride sit up a bit
straighter and feel a sense of community, satisfaction and even dignity every
time I see "contributors" in
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:47:59AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "©
> > OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation
> > (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be
>
Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 20:50 Uhr schrieb Richard Fairhurst <
rich...@systemed.net>:
> "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project:
> this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the
> attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "©
> OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation
> (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be
> necessary to credit the contributors.
When I wrote the /copyright page all
On 17/04/2020 11:27, Kathleen Lu wrote:
The correct attribution legally speaking is just to OpenStreetMap, no
© symbol. That's because OSMF is sublicensing any copyright rights and
licensing any database rights together under the ODbL,.The © is also
leftover from CC-BY-SA days.
maybe the ©
On 17/04/2020 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
you’re Italian, you might be more familiar with diritto d’autore,
which is not exactly the same as copyright
I was born in Naples, and I have an Italian passport, but I might be
more familiar with the Dutch terms. anyhow, my difficulties are more
Per the contributor agreement, the copyright remains with the contributors
(to the extent their individual contributions were copyrightable), to
license their rights to OSMF with a right to sublicense, but the database
rights belong to OSMF, because OSMF is the only entity that "collected" the
sent from a phone
>> On 17. Apr 2020, at 16:47, Mario Frasca wrote:
> somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing. if you're
> right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would probably reconsider my
> position as contributor.
I guess there might be a confusion
Hi,
maybe I'm not reading too attentively, but what I understand is that the
contract is about licensing, while the copyright on what the contract
calls 'Your Contents' stays mine.
that is what I thought when I wrote:
if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap
Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca :
> but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation
> and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd
> rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the
> copyright belongs
On 17.04.20 15:33, Mario Frasca wrote:
> On 17/04/2020 04:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> What about removing [the trailing "contributors" from the ©
>> attribution], so that the required credit becomes "© OpenStreetMap"
>> (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe "©
>>
On 17/04/2020 04:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
What about removing [the trailing "contributors" from the ©
attribution], so that the required credit becomes "© OpenStreetMap"
(it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe "©
OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap
On 17/04/20 13:20, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Independent of what the OSMF suggests in the future - i would probably
continue attributing "OpenStreetMap contributors" where feasible to
clarify that i am crediting the contributors and not the OSMF.
Simply put in these terms, I don't see how "©
On Friday 17 April 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> With the exception of imported datasources that are not
> re-licensable, you do realise though that the actual licensor of the
> data -is- the OSMF? And that attributing "OpenstreetMap contributors"
> is at best a sentimental relict (nothing against
Am 17.04.2020 um 13:20 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> ...
> Independent of what the OSMF suggests in the future - i would probably
> continue attributing "OpenStreetMap contributors" where feasible to
> clarify that i am crediting the contributors and not the OSMF.
With the exception of imported
On Friday 17 April 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "©
> OpenStreetMap" (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe
> "© OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap is a
> brand owned by the
On 17.04.20 11:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "©
> OpenStreetMap"
Yes, crediting © OpenStreetMap with the appropriate link would be a good
solution. Aside from being more concise, it's a lot less awkward in a
non-English or
On 17.04.20 11:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "©
> OpenStreetMap"
Yes, crediting © OpenStreetMap with the appropriate link would be a good
solution. Aside from being more concise, it's a lot less awkward in a
non-English or
Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© OpenStreetMap
contributors", but from the current legal situation (all necessary rights
granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be necessary to credit the contributors.
What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "©
19 matches
Mail list logo
