Am 01.03.2019 um 23:29 schrieb Stefan Keller: > I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our > attribution guidance. > > IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST!
The, rather old, issue with that, is that it stops people from providing better attribution (again old example: on map attribution vs. a paragraph underneath). Any guidance should, IMHO, just lay down the rules for the minimal acceptable attribution but not limit how that can be improved on. Simon > > :Stefan > > P.S. I really would like to collect once in another thread the hidden > agendas behind those > * argueing against proper attribution of OSM (why trying to hide to > mention OSM?), > * calling shame license violators "shenanigans" (so there are violators?), > * questioning the legal status of OSMF (why spreading FUD?) > > Am Fr., 1. März 2019 um 22:55 Uhr schrieb Tomas Straupis > <tomasstrau...@gmail.com>: >> 2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė: >>> As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got >>> paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private >>> investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that >>> isn't even the same sport. You give first rate attribution to OSM and >>> second rate attribution to everything else. >> How/why is the financing of data source part relevant? >> >> How would you calculate the prominence of data source to split them >> into "displayed by default" and "displayed after pressing 'data >> sources'"? >> >> While for data visualisations you could calculate number of objects >> displayed, what would you do for maps and especially thematic maps? >> The latter two would have a specific target group with specific >> interests and a specific idea/information to be communicated which >> could take a smaller area of the map. A thematic map of X with a >> basemap of Y could have visually most part covered by Y, but most >> important part of such a map is X. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ > 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
