There is a difference (a very big one), between saying "if you do X we believe you are fulfilling the requirements of the licence" and saying "you need to do Y to make us happy, even if it doesn't have any founding in the licence". And that has nothing to do with winning court cases, but all with staying true to the 6 million plus agreements the OSMF has with OSM contributors, or put differently: behaving ethically ourselves.
Simon Am 19.02.2020 um 15:51 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: > 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 >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk