On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 07:36:24PM -0800, Michal Migurski wrote: > Facebook is in compliance with the ODbL license which requires that > attribution be “reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, > accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware” > of OSM’s contribution to a map. FB’s attribution approach in keeping with > best practices seen from other commercial users of display maps. > > Parts of the community have expressed a desire to see attribution that goes > beyond the ODbL. [...]
Very interesting way of framing the issue. First you assert that Facebook is in compliance. Then you talk about "Parts of the community" who want something "beyond the ODbL.". But that's a straw man [1] argument. This argument is not about people wanting something beyond the ODbL. This is about a difference in opinion how the license is to be interpreted. Facebook simply reads the license in a different way than other people. This framing is especially interesting, because as board member you would have to defend the ODbL and have a conflict of interest over any issue where different interpretations of the ODbL between OSM/the community vs. Facebook are involved. But you would not have a conflict of interest over anything "beyond the ODbL". So by framing the issue this way you argued yourself out of your conflict of interest problem in this issue. Very clever! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org https://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-351-31778688 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
