On Wednesday 29 April 2020, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote: > [...] > After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider > that required data attribution as prominently as the FAQ suggests. > Industry standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation > of what is "reasonable" under the ODbL.
For clarity once again - although i have said this many times in the past and it is frankly annoying that i have to repeat myself this way because corporate lobbyists continue presenting/implying alternative facts. OSM data is subject to the ODbL. How it needs to be attributed is determined by the wording of the ODbL in the context of how OSM data is being produced through volunteer work (i.e. the contributor terms). Geodata used by Google, Here, TomTom etc. is distributed and used under proprietary, non-open licenses which are very different from the ODbL and do not contain attribution requirements in any way comparable to that of the ODbL. Hence attribution on use of such data sources (assuming it is actually attribution for the data source - which as Alexandre points out is not necessarily always the case) has *absolutely nothing* to do with attribution of OSM data use. What you call commercial data providers depend on the economic viability of their licenses. OSM does not. If your business model does not allow using OSM data and complying with the ODbL at the same time you cannot use OSM data. And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what Martin quoted as: „You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database,...“ is in the way that the determination if any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work becomes aware that Content was obtained from the Database from the attribution provided needs to *be based on reason*. So far no one has even attempted to explain the reasoning behind the expectation that a user of an application with hidden attribution becomes aware that Content was obtained from the Database. But even completely disregarding these points of fundamental logic - the point the OSM community primarily needs to discuss in the context of providing practical guidance on attribution is what expectations mappers have when they agree to the contributor terms regarding the attribution provided by data users. Any guidance the OSM community provides to data users regarding attribution needs to be fundamentally based on and compatible with that to have any social legitimacy. And so far i have not heard any active mapper stating they expect anything other than clearly visible (or more generally: directly perceivable) attribution. There are lots of mappers who state they don't care about attribution but not caring does not mean not expecting. When there is talk among mappers about seeing OSM data use 'in the wild' people almost always are interested in the attribution - even those who would prefer if OSM had chosen PD as license. The only defense of insufficient attribution i have heard from mappers so far is the willingness to settle for less (like because they don't care, because they would prefer a more liberal license anyway and are therefore fine with data users violating the ODbL or because they feel pity for the hardships of corporate data users in developing a business model that works while providing sufficient attribution to OSM). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
