On Wednesday 19 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > The updated document can be found here > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline
I appreciate the draft document being available on the wiki - although the lack of an edit history makes this fairly pointless for the purpose of analyzing what has changed compared to previous drafts. Anyway - while i am not surprised about this it is sobering how little of the feedback provided in previous conversation - in particular from: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/thread.html#83068 has found a substantial reflection in the document. I am therfore reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a waste of effort. The process of designing the document appears to be dominated by a negotiation of lobbying interests rather than by arguments and reasoning. I have no interest in attempting to compete in a lobbying campaign against corporate stakeholders who could easily mobilize an army of lobbyists to fight any voice of reason that stands in the way of their interests. Apart from the various specific issues and self contradictions in the document the overall most questionable thing is that it claims to present recommendations how to be on the safe side w.r.t. attribution of use of OSM data - yet the document then almost exclusively presents supposed exceptions from the attribution requirement of the ODbL. This is a fundamental design flaw of the document. I won't go into details again about why it is a bad idea to from official OSMF side poke holes into the ODbL and what the specific issues are with the specific holes created. I already discussed this at length in August/September. The funny thing is that where apparently things have been re-formulated in an attempt to dodge previous critique the new formulations are often worse than before. For example one criterion for visible attribution being required under the guideline is now if OSM is the "most significant data source". That is ridiculous. I can design any map in a way that i can argue OSM is not the most significant source. It would without doubt lead to many corporate data users *removing* existing OSM attribution from maps where they so far did not dare to do so. But that is just one of many specific issues with the various attribution exceptions being claimed. Not to mention the most blatant attempts at sneaking corporate wishlist items into the guideline are all still there - like the 10000 m^2 map area limit that has been conjured out of thin air apparently and the section on machine learning models which is completely out of place in an attribution guideline and which indicates that some corporate data user wants this kind of "blank check" really badly. I can guarantee that should the OSMF adopt this it is going to blow up in their face. Trying to sneak either of these into a guideline on attribution is just reckless and in complete disregard of the reason why the ODbL has a share-alike provision. If anyone wants to make a serious attempt at actually writing a guidance document how to practically design attribution in a way that is in line with the mapper community consensus interpretation of the ODbL and its intention as well as its function in the social contract between mappers and data users i would gladly help with suggestions and feedback. But what is being presented here is something very different - it is essentially the attempt of slighting of the attribution requirement to an 'if you want you can visible attribute OSM when using its data but if you want to avoid that here are some hints how you can bury the mentioning of using OSM data where hardly anyone will see it' and we, the OSMF, promise to look the other way. Or in other words: It is the preemptive surrender of the OSMF in front of massive corporate interests. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
