> Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> hat am 08.12.2020 18:41 geschrieben: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 09:43, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > > Can you give an example of something that would follow > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice > > and still would not fulfill ODBL? > > What is and isn't allowed by the ODbL can (I think) only be answered by a > court case.
I take that as a no - rendering your original claim: > There are many examples of poor attribution where someone could argue that > they meet this standard. unsubstantiated. > These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using > “should”, rather than “must”. The original formulation of the advice used 'should' exactly two times - and in a context where it means indeed 'should' as per RFC2119, that is in so far as attribution *should* be specific to what OSM data is used for in case a map uses multiple data sources. There is no community consensus that this is more than a strong recommendation. BTW - the OSMF organized editing guidelines: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines use the term 'should' 18 times. ... Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
