If the map says "Copyright BoxMap, imagery copyright IRSE" in bold in the right corner, but the Openstreetmap notice is hidden behind a tiny "i" or ony shown briefly on app startup (which only happens after your phone crashes or the app updates), then this gives the impression that the data is also from BoxMap and IRSE. That is false attribution.
> "we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you are > providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence" Right, and this is our guideline which means "we won't sue you if you follow these steps." It is perfectly reasonable to request things that are the ethical and common-sensically "right way to do it" even if we can't win a court verdict in London or New York or wherever. As the guideline states, we are not claiming to have determined the legal status in any particular country. There is nothing wrong about requesting specific attribution details which are not mentioned in the license. You certainly know that the guidelines are much more specific than the license already, mainly in the many exceptions to the normal attribution requirements which the draft is allowing. We can also add more specific requirements and trust that most database users will do their best to follow them. > I would suggest reading https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward > Copyleft Equality for All". That article is unintelligible to me. Too many jargon terms. But I will note that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, whether you use it to argue for stronger or weaker license enforcement and terms. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope - Joseph Eisenberg On 2/19/20, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > Am 19.02.2020 um 14:40 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: >>> IMHO attribution should always be required 1. on the map 2. in high >>> contrast >> Agreed. >> >> The main problem is that mobile devices, which are by far the most >> common ways of accessing maps around the world, are only required to >> provide attribution after a click or swipe, or even just on app >> startup with a short "splash" screen: > Providing attribution on splash screen is an obvious and widely accepted > way of attribution completely independently of the guideline we are > discussing here. >> >> I think there should be a statement in the guideline that >> Openstreetmap attribution must not be inferior to attribution of other >> data sources or the map designer. That is, if the app logo or aerial >> imagery copyright is shown, then Openstreetmap must also be shown at >> the same time. If Openstreetmap is relegated to a separate splash page >> or linked page, the other copyright/logo features must also be on that >> page. > > The licence does not stipulate any relative criteria for attribution wrt > UI elements, other attribution or anything else on the screen. Adding > such a requirement would break the open definitions requirement that all > terms for use of the content be defined in the licence. Obviously there > is a fine line there that we try not to cross with this guideline, in > that we are only saying that if you follow the guidleine we believe you > are providing sufficient attribution as required by the licence (note > this not new, the problem is inherent in giving any guidance wrt any > effect of the licence). > >> We should not give up on enforcing basic ethical behavior from >> corporations. Everyone who has been to school knows that copying >> without attribution is plagarism, and putting your logo on the front >> makes it look like plagarism if Openstreetmap is relegated to a >> non-visible page. > > Again, enforcing ethical behaviour is outside of the scope of open data > licensing, at least in the definition that is used in our contributor > terms (and which in practical terms is immutable). > > There is currently a lot of discussion on this topic in the OSS > communities, but just to illustrate the kind of slippery slope you are > venturing on to, I would suggest reading > https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?author=bkuhn "Toward Copyleft Equality > for All". > > Simon > >> >> - Joseph M Eisenberg >> (Hobbiest mapper from USA in Indonesia, volunteer contributor to the >> Openstreetmap Carto map style. I have no financial or professional >> interest or conflict.) >> >> On 2/19/20, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < >>> frede...@remote.org>: >>> >>>>> 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 >>>> True, this is a bit strange, it would have to be replaced by "an area >>>> of >>>> up to 1,000 inhabitants" as per the "Substantial" guideline - though I >>>> don't find the difference outrageous, in fact the 10.000m² will only be >>>> *friendlier* towards non-attribution than the "1.000 inhabitatants" in >>>> densely populated urban areas. >>> >>> >>> I guess 10k sqm will be a stronger requirement (almost) everywhere, for >>> example look at Manhattan, maybe not the densest place on earth, but >>> surely >>> one of the densers. With roughly 27500 inhabitants per sqkm, on the >>> average >>> 100x100m NYC patch there will only be 275 inhabitants. >>> >>> >>> >>> I stumbled upon the small maps section. >>> __ >>> The following maps are each considered small: >>> >>> - The map takes up less than 25% of the displayed window, or >>> - The map is of less than 500 device-independent pixels horizontally. >>> >>> Small maps may have attribution after one interaction. Examples of one >>> interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or link that opens a >>> pop-up or new webpage that displays attribution, or a mouseover, swipe, >>> drag, pinch, etc. >>> __ >>> >>> Isn't the reason for not requiring attribution _on the map_ the limited >>> space? Why is there a condition that makes (easily visible) attribution >>> not >>> mandatory for extremely large screens? There is a development from >>> several >>> screens to large screens, and pixel density is generally growing, so the >>> "max 25% of the displayed window is a map" condition doesn't seem >>> reasonable. IMHO attribution should always be required >>> >>> 1. on the map >>> 2. in high contrast >>> >>> (3. in a lower corner, left or right) >>> >>> I am not sure what "device-independent pixels" means. Is this about >>> points >>> (i.e. physical, hardware screen pixels divided by the scale)? IMHO we >>> should require actual, physical pixels, because it is them who determine >>> whether the attribution string will be readable --- and the requirement >>> should be tougher. We have seen many examples of easily readable, >>> unobtrusive attribution on much smaller maps. For example the osm.org >>> website on 467 pixels wide has room for a scale bar and this text: "© >>> OpenStreetMap contributors # Make a Donation. Website and API terms" in >>> a >>> single line. >>> >>> The actual requirement for "© OpenStreetMap contributors" is around 163 >>> pixels. My suggestion would be to make this half: 250 pixels, maybe even >>> less like 200 (theoretical) pixels for retina screens (i.e. 400 actual >>> pixels on retina@2x and 600 actual pixels on retina@3x). >>> Our goal is not to avoid attribution but to show it when it can >>> reasonably >>> be done. >>> >>> >>> >>>> In my opinion, if you train your AI black box with OSM data then >>>> everything that comes out of your AI black box later is a derived work >>>> and must come under the ODbL. >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Cheers >>> Martin >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
