So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free.
You should report it to Mapbox.
Nah, they stop replying me, they must have me on blacklist. Which goes a
bit against their values "*Be respectful and humble.* To everyone —
always." https://www.mapbox.com/about/values/
Speaking of them, seems their interpretation of ODbL is the same as mine:
The /text attribution/ contains at least three links: |© Mapbox|
<https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/>, |© OpenStreetMap|
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/about/> and |Improve this map|
<https://www.mapbox.com/map-feedback/#/-74.5/40/10>. This
_*attribution is strictly *__*/required/*_ when using the Mapbox
Streets tileset due to OpenStreetMap's data source ODbL
<http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/> license.
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel
(the company that omitted the attribution and runs
https://dronesafetymap.com/) and are now using Mapbox instead as
you can see here https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox
owns me a cup of tea for another client, oh well i can refuse that
cup of tea for adding the attribution proudly and not behind "i"
or even omitting. Sometimes i think they are ashamed of using OSM
data instead of proudly showing it. It's not about the data, it's
what you do with it that matters and Mapbox does it well, but
hiding the source is dirty.
How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can see from
the map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use more than one
data source?
Yes, i do agree. Sounds like a good argument to remove the 50% of the
guideline.
That might be your opinion, but I think a court would disagree. Courts
often look at norms in order to interpret a licence.
This is the issue and feels like we are being abuse and pressured with
the court/judge motive. When we shouldn't even go there but doing what's
common sense. Maybe we should just switch to a public domain license,
because that's what seems we have.
The objects don't say anything about strict attribution requirements.
In fact, requirements that are too strict will *discourage* the
"distribution of free geospatial data" by making it too difficult to
use. That's the opposite of "providing geospatial data for anybody to
use and share."
Sure, i have send those concerns to the board. I don't see any
difficulty to use it, you just need to attribute.
Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since
the beginning?
Well apparently we were tricked when we switched from CC to ODbL,
judging by your opinion, we don't need this guidance or the copyright at
all, with the argument of license doesn't say so.
"You must keep intact" means don't delete them, not, "can't be a
link". That last clause is "to the extent reasonably practicable, the
Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be
associated with the Work." In other words, include a link if the
Licensor wants you to include a link! No one has suggested that the
attribution should be only (c) OpenStreetMap with no link back to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
So we are living in a lie since the beginning and dont need the
attribution page at all. Please Board explain.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
