obviously not. their reasonable calculated attribution must be the same
as requested on ODbL, but seems theirs and their logo (like in Strava
app) is reasonable calculated than OpenStreetMap.
On 22/12/2019 22:35, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?
Cheers - Phil
*From:*Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
*To:* Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr>; OSMF Talk
<osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org>; OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
<talk@openstreetmap.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new
way of a fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click
SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne
On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira<nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>
<mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless.
i added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to
add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever
acknowledge.
I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues.
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore
communication attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.
Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
