Given that the attribution is exactly as requested on the website, I would imagine any issues with below 993 layout pixels is an oversight or a bug. A friendly email would suffice, but it certainly does not merit a letter from OSMF. You are free to send the email yourself.
OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline. On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > sent from a phone > > > On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk < > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the > polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative > database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate. > > > in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data > and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all > screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and > most tablets): > > https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css > > @media (max-width: 992px) { > .leaflet-control-attribution { > display: none; > } > } > > This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a > mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über > Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention > of copyright or the ODbL. > > The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to > me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data > about the residential quality of the land? > > Cheers > Martin >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
