Paul, that sounds like a fair point, if I'm understanding correctly. Alex, would it be fair to say that this is more of a recommended alternative, for all the reasons we've stated?
Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is bad for OSM? The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the readable/indexable/searchable text in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. With regards to rebranding, I couldn't agree more that it's no small task. However, I'm not sure why we would lose customer goodwill. While the two are certainly linked, it might not be a bad idea for us to start another thread on the topic of an overall OSM rebranding, just so that we don't derail this discussion here. Loving all of this input, everyone! On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: > The example notice for OdBL contents is “Contains information from > DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License > (ODbL).” This will *always* be acceptable as it is explicitly stated as > meeting the requirements of 4.3. I can’t see any legal justification in the > ODbL for allowing a mark or the example notice, but not something between. > **** > > ** ** > > Have you passed any of these ideas by other publishers of ODbL data or the > ODC lists?**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2013 5:40 AM > *To:* Talk > *Subject:* [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor > mark)**** > > ** ** > > 4. The mark is an alternative to "© OpenStreetMap Contributors". Only > where the mark can't be used, "© OpenStreetMap Contributors" may be used.* > *** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
