19 Feb 2020, 13:14 by o...@imagico.de: > 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. > And from https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-September/thread.html#83068 Is there at least some list of rejected feedback with explanation why? Maybe for example my comments areincorrect and there is actually no way tofit attribution in the map 500 pixels wide and odbl actually has exception for mobile devices that I missed. But currently I am unsure whatever my comments were ignored, taken into account and rejected as invalid or were somehow used to improve this document and are addressed. > I am therfore > reluctant to newly review the document in detail because it seems a > waste of effort. > I hope that things can be still fixed. In particular the claim about 500 pixel wide map not requiring proper attribution really should be fixed. And "mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction" absolutely MUST be removed. This part looks like written by Mapbox copyright lawyers to legitimise their unacceptable attribution hiding. Hiding attribution behind "i" icon is not fulfilling ODBL. It is clearly not enough to make clear that data is from OSM. Allowing to keep that means that we capitulate and allow Mapbox, maps.me, Facebook and others to use our data without a proper attribution. There is enough space on mobile devices to show a proper attribution in the bottom right corner! (or some other corner).
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
