Kathleen Lu wrote: > OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources > does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first > to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not > acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then > OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.
When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example, for CC-BY licences: "...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute 'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license." [linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ] ODbL's core attribution requirement ("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") is not materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued any such waivers. > The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by > a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with > but *is not hosted* by an entity. It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last (AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like. Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does. You can go and check these. I did. The key word here is "principal". From your previous message: > Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes > 3 clicks to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices. > And another 4 clicks to get to this page: > https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent. That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg. Richard [1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger and more prominent than several other cases under discussion. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
