I apologize for the signature (my mistake) and asked for the mailing
list admin to remove it.
This is not a matter on how the attribution must be made, like we
discussed before in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-February/082136.html,
it's them not attributing at all.
OSMF is the licensor, as written of
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
OSMF's role as Licensor and publisher of the database
I have asked Facebook (as a contributor) several times to comply with
our guidelines and they stopped replying and did not add the attribution
over the last six months.
As we have moved from CC to ODbL i assume OSMF as the licensor has the
right and in my opinion must notify the violation of 4.3 under 9.4 c) as
they just keep ignoring adding the attribution as requested on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”.
They do not fit under substantial concept:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
The OpenStreetMap community regards the following as being not
Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the
extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a
similar project.
* Less than 100 Features.
* More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic
and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an
extract of all the the locations of restaurants you have visited
for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of a
selection of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are
writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. The systematic
extraction of all eating places within an area or at all castles
within an area would be considered to be systematic.
* The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which
can be a small densely populated area such as a European village
or can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of
the Australian bush with few Features.
Note also that we regard*repeated small extractions as one big
extraction*!
Às 15:39 de 09/06/2019, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:
9 Jun 2019, 13:08 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
I support efforts to stop large scale violation of OSM license by
Facebook.
Note
"You must include a notice associated with
the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
is available under this License."
in https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
that is clearly violated, nearly noone using FB is made aware
that maps are powered by OSM data.
But this attempt is a bit substandard
I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the
Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their
rights under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of
notice. as written on ODbL.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
Unfortunately, as far as I know, it is OSMF that must produce this
notice (I may be mistaken here).
Also, can you consider not including such footer notices in emails
posted on a public mailing list?
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
