2008/4/3 David Ebling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > True, I acknowledge that, but requiring two seperate > attributions for OSM data is going to be confusing to > people who use the data. So far we have managed to get > by on just one attribution. > .............. > > It changes the attribution which all data derived from > OSM (where NZ is involved) must display to one which > is considerably longer. At the moment you can just put > "(c)openstreetmap CC-by-SA" in the bottom corner of a > map, right? Won't all derivations and derivations of > derivations have two licences and attributions applied > to it, even if they are compatible? > > The fact that we can provide a set-up on the OSM home > page that meets LINZ's requirements is one thing. > Whether everyone who ever uses the data in future > wants to have to display LINZ's copyright is another > matter, and the one that concenrs me more.
this is a very good point. does someone using the data need to attribute every source, no matter how many steps distant from the original data they are? or if someone uses OSM data, can they just attribute back to osm, and suggest users go to osm to find out the details of the contributors? i guess the answer is yes to the first question, no to the second. but that's the consequence of using cc-by-sa. if a license is chosen, it should be supported - we can't then complain it's too hard to implement, and the same goes for anyone else that uses osm data down the line > Imagine if we import data for many counries in the > world, each with an extra attribution. Now imagine if > I print a map and put it on a leaflet, incorporate the > data or a map into some software, etc etc. There may > not be easy attribution schemes that meet all the > possible uses of OSM data. several options: 1. research the origin of the data you are using, and attribute these only - this wouldn't be too difficult with the api history that someone mentioned earlier 2. quote all the sources to be sure/save time, which may or may not be practical > If we carry on down this path and keep adding > attribution requirements, we will end up with a map > that meets this description: "maps you think of as > free actually have legal or technical restrictions on > their use, holding back people from using them in > creative, productive or unexpected ways." Does that > sound familiar? It's things like this that make me > wish that OSM was public domain not CC-by-SA. > Unfortunately I know this will never happen. well, they're not being held back - they have to include some text to acknowledge the work of others. compared to the license on the data of professional map companies, this is incredibly unconstrained > etc. As soon as the dataset is imported, it will begin > to be merged with OSM data. Removing it again will > mean deleting peoples' hard work. So I believe we > should be in no rush whatsoever to go ahead, even if > we have agreement from LINZ with the proposed > solution. very true, retracted _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
