The ODbL (like for example the CC licences too) does not allow sub-licencing and stipulates that every licensee is licensed directly by the OSMF.
Am 13.06.2019 um 19:10 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:17 PM Nuno Caldeira > <nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > [...] OSMF is the licensor [...] > > > Well, if we really want to be strict about it, AFAIK, Facebook did not > get their map data directly from OSMF but rather through Mapbox. > Mapbox got their data directly from OSMF and are re-releasing their > OSM derivative database and produced works as vector tiles and static > map images via their APIs and SDKs. This would mean that it is the > responsibility of Mapbox to notify Facebook that FB is not in > compliance with the ODbL. > > However, I really think it would be interesting to see if OSMF > bypassing Mapbox and directly contacting one of Mapbox's clients is a > valid legal avenue to pursue attribution violations. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
