On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote: > I disagree that there is no harm. [...]
Not sure if you noticed but my argument was the inherent asymmetry of the situation when creating a guideline with recommendations. If there is harm like "hurt feelings" from erring on the side of caution in a guideline is completely beside the point. The credibility point does decidedly *not* go both ways. The OSMF is not a neutral intermediary, it has the obligation to represent the interests of the project and not those of outside data users. As Nuno linked to the OSMF right now points out the reasons why we ask for attribution: "We want you to attribute OpenStreetMap, i.e. you show users and viewers of whatever you do with our data clearly where you got the data from. A lot of contributors have spent and spend a lot of time and effort adding data from virtually every country in the world. We would also like people to know about our project and perhaps use or contribute data themselves." It is completely acceptable and even expected that the OSMF asks for and encourages attribution of OSM beyond the minimum required by the license. That this would result in the loss of trust from anyone seems ridiculous. And by the way if i try to follow your line of reasoning: you interestingly did not mention the most significant harm resulting from potentially unneccessary requirements: Lost profits. Ein Schelm wer böses dabei denkt... -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
