> I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good indication > of what is reasonable. > If someone is hitting OSM's tile server, then that would be the industry > equivalent of using Google or HERE's API, for which they typically require > on-map logo attribution. > For using *data* from someone's geodatabase, on the other hand, the standard > attribution for webmaps varies widely from on-map to after several menu > choices; and the standard attribution on mobile is 5-6 clicks from the UI. > 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 > 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.
I disagree. Google Maps provides both the tiles and the map data, and I'm pretty sure the attribution works for both services they provide, i.e., if you used Google's map data you'd still be required to attribute them in the map layer. The thing is, they don't allow separation between the tiles and the map data. Assuming someone is using OSM map data and saying attribution should be less strict is like selling proprietary software without a EULA or ToS then complaining that someone is using your software "the wrong way". > It’s a database technically, but it’s a database purpose-built for making > maps. Hence the name OpenStreetMap. > > The attribution goes on the map. > > This is not a difficult requirement to meet. Literally this. If the idea is to be an alternative map to proprietary maps, why do we need to be so passive about attribution? OSM barely attracts contributors with projects that use attribution, removing the need of attribution or making it optional (like some people think it should be) would be the nail in the coffin for the project. I don't understand. What's the problem about copying what every other proprietary map does, adding a credit on top of the map layer? Mapping libraries do this, Google Maps and Bing do it (and they're source for data). Do we want big companies like Netflix stealing our precious hard work without even crediting the people that spent their time on improving OSM? They used OSM data on their recent movie "All The Bright Places"[0]. > The FAQ is not the license. The license is the ODbL. The ODbL says absolutely > nothing about whether attribution should be on a map or not. Read it here: > https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/index.html And the FAQ specifies conditions to attribute the data. The license text says there should be attribution, and the FAQ tells you how to do it. Of course, it would be better if there was a Terms of Use document for OSM data that explicitly stated that you need to credit OSM for the map data by adding a text box over the map with the text "(C) OpenStreetMap contributors" and linking to the wiki page with a list of contributors. This "our attribution guideline is too strict! we should make it less strict!" mentality is saddening. It only enforces the stereotype for open source and data that "oh, if it's open I can simply steal this code and not credit the original authors, everyone will think I am badass for making this!". Is it so hard to stop removing a single line of code from your projects, so that they can properly attribute OSM? (AFAIK Leaflet and Mapbox have attribution enabled by default) [0] https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1254421478705188866 -- Atenciosamente, Alexandre Oliveira. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
