Apologies for being rhetorical and passive in my prior post. "Maybe" is incorrect.
The statement "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" _is definitely_ a required credit. See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright "You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt our data, as long as you credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors." The page then goes on to describe how to do this credit. This web page defines our implementation of ODBL para 4.3.(a). Up to now, I'm not talking only about the existing copyright markings and not about the teardrop / hammer mark But, Alex has stated that he *does* want to replace that statement with a mark (sounds cool to me), so he's suggesting we amend the copyright and license terms, which might be doable under para 4.3 of the ODBL referenced by Paul (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). In addition, Alex is suggesting that the mark link not the existing copyright statement, but to a different contributors page, which seems (to this caveman lawyer) less likely to adhere to para 4.3. The function of credit/attribution/notification that ODBL-derived data was a source for a Produced Work is a requirement of the ODBL. So, we have a requirement for at least 1 mark that references at least source copyright, etc. It seems like the options are: a) Add a better sense & essence of contributors & modifiability to the existing copyright notice. b) Add another mark (a) seems more feasible, as I don't think OSM-related Produced Works want to add multiple marks to a single map (or would we), but who knows? We definitely need Legal WG input here. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Paweł Paprota <ppa...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Isn't the purpose of "OSM and Contributors" to "credit" or "attribute" > > the > > source of the map tile data? > > > > Maybe, maybe not. More importantly - the fact that there's a discussion > what this "mark" tries to communicate means that it fails to do it > properly in the first place. > > At first glance I thought it was just sort of a banner to promote OSM > but if it is to replace the legal attribution then it's not really doing > that job. I support Kai's idea about separating the two functions. I > like the Wikipedia example. It would be really cool to have a widely > known "edit" button/symbol/"mark" sitting in the corner of embedded maps > to show that the map is a living thing that can be corrected, enriched > etc. > > I also agree with Tom - naming stuff *is* very important and is > definitely not a side issue. Right now "contributors mark" suggests at > least two different things - list of contributors or some kind of award > for being a contributor and neither of them is true... This stuff should > really be dead simple and intuitive, if you have to think about it as a > user, explain, discuss then forget it, it won't work in the wild. Of > course it's always harder to communicate more with less but that's the > main challenge I see here... > > Paweł > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> osm: Historical OSM<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM> / my OSM user page <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> t: @GWHAThistory <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory> f: GWHAThistory <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
