Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
Am 08.12.2020 um 18:36 schrieb Rory McCann: Yes, fundamentally, you're 100% correct. The ODbL licence is the thing that matters when it comes to what's legally required. And that says nothing about “device independent pixels” or “javascript popup clicks”, it only refers to the mental state of someone. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on data protection (Art. 8) is only about 80 words long (DE 73, EN 82, GA 101), but the GDPR that implements it is 55,000 words long. I view the ODbL as like our “constitution” for what you can do with the data. This analogy is clearly wrong. If anything at all, the contributor terms would be the constitution, the ODbL is just one of many possible ways the constitutional requirements could be implemented, and, if you so want, the guidance published by the OSMF are the ordinances that cover details and fix issues that the law makers didn't foresee or which are simply mistakes. It will be short, but for practical real word answers you need laws & court cases which expand on it. One can always challenge a law for violating a constituation limit or requirement, and it should be the same with the ODbL & the OSMF's Attribution Guidelines. But outside of the realm of not really fitting analogies, there is a reason why in many modern states the constitution and laws evolve, because the world and the circumstances in which the rules are applied change over time, and wise governing bodies adapt their rule book to changing reality. The ODbL was formulated as a generic database licence, independent of the subject matter and without the more than a decade experience with actual use cases that we have now, many of which were not considered at the time. We can take a pragmatic approach to this, which was the practice over the last 10 years and undoubtably one of the reasons OSM has become such a thriving success, we can formally revise the law (one of the LWG proposals for getting out of the quagmire in a democratic fashion that wasn't responded to), or we can tie ourselves to yesteryears fights with overly literal reading of the rules without taking change in to account. Naturally people tend to only be literal when it serves their specific political aims and allow them to maximize hubris and strife, and not when not. Maybe I should just be literal about the contributor terms and bring OSM to a screeching halt for effect. Simon So I think there's a lot of benefit in writing out, in my more detail, how you can follow §4.3, rather than speaking in generalities. On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 00:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: Rory McCann hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben: But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution where someone could argue that they meet this standard. As i have already explained to you in http://blog.imagico.de/the-osmf-changes-during-the-past-year-and-what-they-mean-for-the-coming-years-part-2/#comment-141145 the opposite is the case - the advise as formulated precisely explains the criterion for valid attribution. Attribution has the purpose to be perceived by humans. To determine if a certain form of attribution is acceptable you have to look at the effect it has on human perception while interacting with the produced work. It is understandable that to people with a primarily technical background this very concept appears uncomfortable and hard to grasp and their reflex is to substitute this with something purely technical where you can essentially program a test to verify if the attribution is OK independent of the human user. That cannot work. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
Dec 8, 2020, 18:41 by r...@technomancy.org: > 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. > While details can be argued and litigated some things are clear. For example big prominent attribution is certainly fine, while completely missing attribution and displaying worldwide map is certainly not. So, we may safely recommend using visible attribution what is - certainly fulfilling ODBL - not a burden for someone using OSM data in a good faith - in our interest > These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using > “should”, rather than “must”. > I am not a native speaker, personally I wold be fine with strengthening "should" to "must". ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
> Rory McCann 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
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. These guidelines suffer the same mistake as the old OSMF Legal FAQ¹ of using “should”, rather than “must”. While some dialects would treat “should” as a very strong should, practically a “must”, the original author of that FAQ has said it was a mistake². Someone could rightly read “should do/do not do X” as an optional requirement. Someone could read “the attribution should not be automatically hidden without action by the user” as meaning “It's OK to hide the attribution behind a popup that the user must click on”. Interestingly there's an internet standard on these terms, RFC 2119³ ¹ https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F ² https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-February/082136.html ³ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
Yes, fundamentally, you're 100% correct. The ODbL licence is the thing that matters when it comes to what's legally required. And that says nothing about “device independent pixels” or “javascript popup clicks”, it only refers to the mental state of someone. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on data protection (Art. 8) is only about 80 words long (DE 73, EN 82, GA 101), but the GDPR that implements it is 55,000 words long. I view the ODbL as like our “constitution” for what you can do with the data. It will be short, but for practical real word answers you need laws & court cases which expand on it. One can always challenge a law for violating a constituation limit or requirement, and it should be the same with the ODbL & the OSMF's Attribution Guidelines. So I think there's a lot of benefit in writing out, in my more detail, how you can follow §4.3, rather than speaking in generalities. On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, at 00:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > > > Rory McCann hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben: > > > > But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the > > relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution > > where someone could argue that they meet this standard. > > As i have already explained to you in > > http://blog.imagico.de/the-osmf-changes-during-the-past-year-and-what-they-mean-for-the-coming-years-part-2/#comment-141145 > > the opposite is the case - the advise as formulated precisely explains > the criterion for valid attribution. > > Attribution has the purpose to be perceived by humans. To determine if > a certain form of attribution is acceptable you have to look at the > effect it has on human perception while interacting with the produced > work. > > It is understandable that to people with a primarily technical > background this very concept appears uncomfortable and hard to grasp > and their reflex is to substitute this with something purely technical > where you can essentially program a test to verify if the attribution > is OK independent of the human user. That cannot work. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > 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] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
Can you give an example of something that would follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice and still would not fulfill ODBL? I see no obvious loopholes there. Dec 7, 2020, 22:57 by r...@technomancy.org: > It's good to see more discussion on this. I like that this document lays out > the moral requirment to attribute. We don't ask for any money, but we do ask > you to attribute us. It's a very good bargain. > > But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the > relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution > where someone could argue that they meet this standard. > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, at 21:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> I appreciate the wik page "Community attribution advice" which was made >> by another community member. It seems to give good advice about how >> database users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that >> everybody* in this community can support. >> >> Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice >> >> -- Joseph Eisenberg >> >> (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, >> which are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers >> and database users) >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > ___ > 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] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
> Rory McCann hat am 07.12.2020 22:57 geschrieben: > > But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the > relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution > where someone could argue that they meet this standard. As i have already explained to you in http://blog.imagico.de/the-osmf-changes-during-the-past-year-and-what-they-mean-for-the-coming-years-part-2/#comment-141145 the opposite is the case - the advise as formulated precisely explains the criterion for valid attribution. Attribution has the purpose to be perceived by humans. To determine if a certain form of attribution is acceptable you have to look at the effect it has on human perception while interacting with the produced work. It is understandable that to people with a primarily technical background this very concept appears uncomfortable and hard to grasp and their reflex is to substitute this with something purely technical where you can essentially program a test to verify if the attribution is OK independent of the human user. That cannot work. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
It's good to see more discussion on this. I like that this document lays out the moral requirment to attribute. We don't ask for any money, but we do ask you to attribute us. It's a very good bargain. But I think this attribution is too vague. It's advice seems to restate the relevant section from the ODbL. There are many examples of poor attribution where someone could argue that they meet this standard. On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, at 21:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I appreciate the wik page "Community attribution advice" which was made > by another community member. It seems to give good advice about how > database users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that > everybody* in this community can support. > > Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, > which are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers > and database users) > ___ > 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] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
The text of the first section previously ended with this sentence: "To what extent you might practically get away with lesser attribution - either legally or socially - is outside the scope of this document." Probably such a sentence is acceptable in some cultures, but it sounds odd in the Anglo-American legal context so I removed it. However, perhaps there is a more polite way to say the same sort of thing, without seeming to invite "getting away with it?" -- Joseph Eisenberg On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny via talk < talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > One thing that is missing to me is explicit mention that it is not > overriding ODBL or related laws and is not adding any legal > requirements. > > If someone follows ODBL license or is in situation where following license > is not needed for some reason, they can legally do this. > > Maybe also mention that it is may be recommending more attribution than > bare minimum that is required by ODBL, so it is a safe solution that should > be also fine for any typical[1] project that is not hostile to OSM? > > [1] "typical" - especially for very small objects things gets trickier, > if you are making some special purpose map (tactile map for blind) > then attribution also needs to be adapted, if map is going to be used > in place where English is not understood in general you will definitely > need to translate attribution etc etc. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline claim > that smartphone has not enough space for attribution is clearly untrue. > But if you show OSM map on screen of size 1cm x 1 cm or similarly tiny > physical object then alternative attribution methods - that still comply > with > ODBL - may be preferable. > > Dec 4, 2020, 21:41 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > > I appreciate the wik page "Community attribution advice" which was made > by another community member. It seems to give good advice about how > database users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that > everybody* in this community can support. > > Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, > which are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers and > database users) > > > ___ > 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] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
Hi, On 12/4/20 21:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: Might be worth waiting until the next OSMF board meeting (in 5 days) which has the official attribution guidelines on its agenda; perhaps they come to a decision on that which would likely also inform any discussion about this advice page - either the community is happy enough with the official guidelines which would then make this page expendable, or at least the page could use language like "in addition/in contrast to the official requirement, lah lah lah". 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] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
One thing that is missing to me is explicit mention that it is not overriding ODBL or related laws and is not adding any legal requirements. If someone follows ODBL license or is in situation where following license is not needed for some reason, they can legally do this. Maybe also mention that it is may be recommending more attribution than bare minimum that is required by ODBL, so it is a safe solution that should be also fine for any typical[1] project that is not hostile to OSM? [1] "typical" - especially for very small objects things gets trickier, if you are making some special purpose map (tactile map for blind) then attribution also needs to be adapted, if map is going to be used in place where English is not understood in general you will definitely need to translate attribution etc etc. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline claim that smartphone has not enough space for attribution is clearly untrue. But if you show OSM map on screen of size 1cm x 1 cm or similarly tiny physical object then alternative attribution methods - that still comply with ODBL - may be preferable. Dec 4, 2020, 21:41 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > I appreciate the wik page "> Community attribution advice" which was made by > another community member. It seems to give good advice about how database > users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that everybody* in > this community can support. > > Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, which > are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers and database > users) > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
[This is the current text:] This document is an attempt to summarize the expectations the OpenStreetMap mapper community has for OSM data users regarding the attribution required by the OpenStreetMap license. In line with the general culture of OpenStreetMap it does not try to provide step by step instructions on how to attribute but instead gives advice on how the community views attribution and allows data users to meet these expectations under their own responsibility. Views within the OpenStreetMap mapper community on what kind of attribution is or should be necessary vary slightly. This advice in meant to describe the consensus position in the sense that attribution designed based on this advice will find a broad consensus among mappers to be acceptable. == Why we require attribution == OpenStreetMap data is produced and maintained primarily by volunteer mappers. Data users do not need to provide any financial or other form of remuneration to mappers for using their work - except attribution. Attribution of use of OpenStreetMap data is the acknowledgement you need to give to the mappers for the work they provide, which you are otherwise free to use. By doing so you express your respect and appreciation of the work of millions of OpenStreetMap contributors that they allow you to freely use, and help new volunteer mappers join the community for the benefit of all database users. If your users do not know that OpenStreetMap is the source of your data, they will not be able to fix mistakes and improve the quality of the database. Not all OpenStreetMap mappers individually make their contribution contingent on data users providing attribution but we all expect this attribution to be provided by all data users as the collective position of the whole mapper community based on which we have chosen the license for our data. == What we mean by attribution == What we understand attribution to mean is formally stated in [ https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ section 4.3 of the ODbL]: *"However, 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, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License."* What we mean by this is that the criterion for a valid attribution is if it effectively makes the user aware that OpenStreetMap data licensed under the ODbL is used. In case of an interactive map the widely used form of attribution shown in one of the corners of the map can fulfill this requirement when displayed at least in a size and prominence comparable to other content displayed on the screen. But it can also fail to do so if displayed right next to a blinking ad catching all the user's attention, for example. It is the responsibility of those who publicly use OpenStreetMap data to ensure the attribution fulfills its purpose and makes the user aware of the provenience of the data. You need to actively communicate this information to the user to meet these requirements. Merely making it available to users who are actively seeking this information is not enough. While we require you to attribute use of OpenStreetMap data we also want you to only attribute OpenStreetMap for data which comes from our database and not for any other geodata you might use in addition. Therefore you should be specific about what elements of your map or other work are based on OpenStreetMap data in your attribution. === Interactive maps === In interactive applications of OpenStreetMap data, such as interactive maps, it is accepted among mappers if the information about the nature of the OpenStreetMap data license is provided through a link in contexts where links are a generally expected method to provide more detailed information. The condition for this is that the medium of display allows showing the information behind the link in a form readable for the user. This condition needs to be considered in particular for applications that are likely to be used offline. The traditional form of attribution text in interactive online applications is "© [https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright OpenStreetMap contributors]" with a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. This emphasizes the above mentioned purpose of the attribution acknowledging the work of the mappers. The shortened "© OpenStreetMap" is typically also accepted though some mappers prefer the longer and more specific version. Note making the user aware does not require continuously nagging them about it. In a single user viewing situation it is perfectly all right - and in some cases even desirable - to allow the user to hide the attribution after seeing it. However, the attribution should not be automatically hidden without action by the user ===
[OSM-talk] Please review "Community attribution advice” wiki page
I appreciate the wik page "Community attribution advice" which was made by another community member. It seems to give good advice about how database users can comply with the attribution guidelines in a way that everybody* in this community can support. Please review the page and make any comments for improvement if needed: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_attribution_advice -- Joseph Eisenberg (*Note that "everybody" does not include the interests of corporations, which are not persons, but rather the interests of individual mappers and database users) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
