Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi, what I write below is my own opinion and not that of the OSMF board, just as Mikel's opinion is his own and not that of the OSMF board. On 01.03.19 02:51, Mikel Maron wrote: > These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to > happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if > OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to > enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans > -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any > more. ) You make three points here, one that there's no rules we could enforce, and then you say even if we could shame people into adhering to rules that we cannot enforce, we shouldn't do that either, and that the reason for this largesse was that "we have won". I disagree in all three points. 1. I think that we can set up rules - not mere "recommendations" - that we can enforce. 2. I think that we should shame people into following our rules if they don't do it voluntarily. 3. I think that we should be firm in asserting our place in the geo data world, and as long as other players in the field use intellectual property regulations to their advantage, we should too. As long as Google only give you their maps if you in turn acquiesce to being tracked, so should we only give people our maps if they are willing to follow our rules. This has nothing to do with "having won". > We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. Frankly, I wouldn't believe you even if you were a lawyer. But you aren't! > We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can > only be formulated through the OSMF We would have to find a way to exclude corporate interests from formulating that recommendation though, or we'd be like a supermarket that lets its customers set the price. I.e. no board members or working group members working for any business affected by a decision should participate, and neither should the "advisory board" on which corporate interests are represented. The fact that the resulting sub-group of the OSMF would be quite small is food for thought! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any more. ) Sure we could get legal, but imagine the number of legal opinions about what "reasonably calculated" means. We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, February 28, 2019, 8:03:23 PM EST, Greg Troxel wrote: Paul Norman via talk writes: > On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" >> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an >> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: >> >> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png >> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG > > In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how > they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom > logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap > > With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated" > attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other > companies. Agreed. The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny. I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the attribution rules be followed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Paul Norman via talk writes: > On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" >> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an >> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: >> >> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png >> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG > > In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how > they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom > logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap > > With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated" > attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other > companies. Agreed. The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny. I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the attribution rules be followed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... > For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner > of the map." 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where - depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be readable, or so big it obscures what people need to see. > Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must" > purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that RFC 2119 is (or would have been) your friend: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not > provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This > response might be: > e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :) f) We move to PD / CC0 licensing. > There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but > the issue has never really broken through. Perhaps because the community (that is, the mapping community, not the mailing list community) just doesn't care that much - which suggests your options a or b would apply? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On 01/03/19 09:50, Paul Norman via talk wrote: On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated" attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other companies. hat is a good thing on a small screen. OSMand drops all the symbols from its map display when your not using the screen - maximising the view of the map. That is a good thing on a small screen. Some apps start with an introductory screen (a 'splash' screen?) while they boot. That might be a good place to have the OSM attribution? Possibly there needs to be a selection of OSM attributions that the user can select from? --- There are certain legal words that are used to enforce action. The word 'should' in not one of them. From my recollection the words 'shall' and 'will' are clearer choices, one word for the customer, another for the provider. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated" attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other companies. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi all, In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG (This should be obvious but I am in no means meaning to pick on Mapbox or Apple here - as anyone who knows me will testify, I have the utmost respect both for Mapbox's technical chops, their ability to iterate on a compelling product and their success in building the biggest mapping platform using OSM data; and I've been an Apple fanboy since my first Mac IIsi back in, erk, 1992. They're just the two that sprang to mind, bearing in mind that as someone that old, these social networks about photos and stuff are way too modern for me.) It should also be said that many providers - the majority - provide attribution in compliance with our policy at osm.org/copyright, i.e. showing attribution in the corner of the map, and in many cases generously going beyond with "Improve this map" pages; and that some providers will do great things like this much of the time and resort to "(i)" or "About" only part of the time. The policy, introduced with the changeover to the ODbL, says: "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of the map." There then follows an example screenshot of a map of Charlbury (woo) with a credit in the corner. The OSM Foundation Legal FAQ is pretty much the same (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F). Historically the aim of requiring attribution has been partly to thank contributors, and partly because it's a virtuous feedback loop. If you see a map and it's wrong or incomplete, seeing "(c) OpenStreetMap" in the corner shows you where the data comes from, so you can go and improve it. That way we get more contributors, the map gets better, it's more valuable to its consumers, so more people use it, so more people improve it... and so on. The legal rationale is 4.3 in the Open Database Licence (https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html), and in particular "if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include 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 aware that Content was obtained from the Database". The key phrase is "reasonably calculated" and our view in 2012 was that, since the major mapping providers (Google, Navteq/Nokia/HERE, TomTom etc.) required and implemented on-screen attribution, "reasonably" meant that users would expect a credit to be provided in that way. The OSMF FAQ makes this explicit: "you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier". Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must" purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that (http://termcoord.eu/2016/08/the-truth-behind-british-impoliteness/ , especially the "I would suggest" line). It used to say "request" rather than "require" for the same reason. In retrospect I should have realised not everyone is British and we should really have hired a lawyer to review the page. I think that months in the trenches of the licence change had probably given us trench fever for things like that. Entirely my fault and I take full responsibility for it (but you know, it's so great not to have to write 500 monthly mails to legal-talk@ any more). So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This response might be: a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but we do not intend to update our requirements c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out data consumers that contravene these requirements e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :) Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license away the rights of mappers. There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly,
