Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:02 AM, Jiri Vlasak wrote:
> +1. I feel that "contributors" should stay in the credit.
+1 here, as well. I correctly and not with excessive overt pride sit up a bit
straighter and feel a sense of community, satisfaction and even dignity every
time I see "contributors" in OSM's copyright statement. ("That's millions of
us doing good work because we love this kind of mapping, including ME!") This
recognition is important. This is one of the best reasons I contribute to our
map and I am certain that I'm not alone in these feelings. (For every +1 you
see here, there are hundreds, thousands, I'm pretty sure millions that you
don't see).
Sure, the results are a darn good map which gets better every hour of every
day. But crediting "contributors" is a critical component of that happening.
Remove it and you remove my sense of belonging to this mapping community, so,
the growing chant from the masses should be clear: don't do that. Changing
the rules (licensing, recognition, rights...) in the middle of the journey is
the quickest way to discourage more of us to drop out of this fine project.
SteveA
California
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:47:59AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© > > OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation > > (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be > > necessary to credit the contributors. > > When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it > required that particular attribution were: > > "©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I > take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that > the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©" > serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits > that are required by other maps". > > "OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously. > > "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project: > this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the > attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand: > "TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap > contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and, > implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for > OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my > mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more > contributors and make the map better. > > I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might > be helpful. +1. I feel that "contributors" should stay in the credit. jiri ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 20:50 Uhr schrieb Richard Fairhurst < rich...@systemed.net>: > "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project: > this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the > attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand: > "TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap > contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and, > implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for > OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To > my > mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more > contributors and make the map better. > > I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might > be helpful. it is helpful, while on the other hand, our current copyright page points to the "contributors" page, which is a long list of public data providers, generally institutional: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors Maybe we should extend this list by the usernames of everybody who has made at least 1 contribution? Is it really "impossible to adequately acknowledge the many individuals who survey their neighbourhoods with GPS and notepad, or trace over licensed satellite imagery," ? Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© > OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation > (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be > necessary to credit the contributors. When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it required that particular attribution were: "©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©" serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits that are required by other maps". "OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously. "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project: this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand: "TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and, implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more contributors and make the map better. I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might be helpful. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17/04/2020 11:27, Kathleen Lu wrote: The correct attribution legally speaking is just to OpenStreetMap, no © symbol. That's because OSMF is sublicensing any copyright rights and licensing any database rights together under the ODbL,.The © is also leftover from CC-BY-SA days. maybe the © does help understanding that the following text (OpenStreetMap) is a copyright statement. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17/04/2020 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: you’re Italian, you might be more familiar with diritto d’autore, which is not exactly the same as copyright I was born in Naples, and I have an Italian passport, but I might be more familiar with the Dutch terms. anyhow, my difficulties are more related to your explanations to the contract, than to the contract itself and the basic terminology. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Per the contributor agreement, the copyright remains with the contributors (to the extent their individual contributions were copyrightable), to license their rights to OSMF with a right to sublicense, but the database rights belong to OSMF, because OSMF is the only entity that "collected" the database. The correct attribution legally speaking is just to OpenStreetMap, no © symbol. That's because OSMF is sublicensing any copyright rights and licensing any database rights together under the ODbL,.The © is also leftover from CC-BY-SA days. On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:49 AM Mario Frasca wrote: > Hi, > > maybe I'm not reading too attentively, but what I understand is that the > contract is about licensing, while the copyright on what the contract calls > 'Your Contents' stays mine. > > that is what I thought when I wrote: > > if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap > contributors", I'm fine. > > I have the impression you are confusing copyright ownership with licensing > and authorization to sub-licensing. > > Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual > contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution > rights to the OSMF). > > somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing. if > you're right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would probably > reconsider my position as contributor. > > MF > On 17/04/2020 09:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca : > >> but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation >> and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd >> rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the >> copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or as a community. > > > > I tried to look at the legal situation (morally, I agree that > OpenStreetMap is more about the community than OpenStreetMapFoundation, > indeed that's an unmentioned reason why I suggested OpenStreetMap and not > the foundation to be credited also in an updated version. > > Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual > contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution > rights to the OSMF). It is written in the contract you have signed with the > OSMF (contributor terms). If you download data from OpenStreetMap, your > licensor is the OSMF. You have authorized the OSMF to distribute the > content on their behalf, and to pursue copyright infringements. > > "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, > perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by > copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the > Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights > explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of > endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to > sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for > any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these > terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright > conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its > licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." > > There are also some conditions of course, "OSMF agrees that it may only > use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the > terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database > and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or > such other free and open licence as may from time to time be chosen by a > vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of > active contributors." > > And of course in 5 you have mutually agreed, that "except as set forth > herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents." > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms > > The excerpts are copied from the current version 1.2.4. > There isn't much information (or I didn't find it) to which specific > version one has agreed, nor is the text of former versions publicly > visible, but AFAIK OSMF has internally a trace of who has agreed to which > version, and of course people will have their own copies on their pc. > I don't recall agreeing to any updated versions of the Contributor Terms > after 2012, and I guess nobody has, you always agreed to the current > version when you signed up (or at the license change in 2012), so your > contract with the OSMF may be slightly different. > > Cheers > Martin > > > > > > > ___ > 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] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
sent from a phone >> On 17. Apr 2020, at 16:47, Mario Frasca wrote: > somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing. if you're > right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would probably reconsider my > position as contributor. I guess there might be a confusion between copyright and authorship. If you’re Italian, you might be more familiar with diritto d’autore, which is not exactly the same as copyright. Copyright is the right to make copies (reproduce, perform, etc) The right you granted to OpenStreetMap-Foundation are all the economic rights. Besides, there are moral rights, namely the right to claim authorship of a work and the right to object to any distortion or modification of a work, or other derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation You have agreed with OpenStreetMap-Foundation that you are not going to assert your moral rights for the content that you provided. (This is aiming at the right to object to modifications) Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Hi, maybe I'm not reading too attentively, but what I understand is that the contract is about licensing, while the copyright on what the contract calls 'Your Contents' stays mine. that is what I thought when I wrote: if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap contributors", I'm fine. I have the impression you are confusing copyright ownership with licensing and authorization to sub-licensing. Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution rights to the OSMF). somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing. if you're right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would probably reconsider my position as contributor. MF On 17/04/2020 09:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca mailto:ma...@anche.no>>: but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or as a community. I tried to look at the legal situation (morally, I agree that OpenStreetMap is more about the community than OpenStreetMapFoundation, indeed that's an unmentioned reason why I suggested OpenStreetMap and not the foundation to be credited also in an updated version. Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution rights to the OSMF). It is written in the contract you have signed with the OSMF (contributor terms). If you download data from OpenStreetMap, your licensor is the OSMF. You have authorized the OSMF to distribute the content on their behalf, and to pursue copyright infringements. "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." There are also some conditions of course, "OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors." And of course in 5 you have mutually agreed, that "except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents." https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms The excerpts are copied from the current version 1.2.4. There isn't much information (or I didn't find it) to which specific version one has agreed, nor is the text of former versions publicly visible, but AFAIK OSMF has internally a trace of who has agreed to which version, and of course people will have their own copies on their pc. I don't recall agreeing to any updated versions of the Contributor Terms after 2012, and I guess nobody has, you always agreed to the current version when you signed up (or at the license change in 2012), so your contract with the OSMF may be slightly different. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca : > but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation > and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd > rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the > copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or as a community. I tried to look at the legal situation (morally, I agree that OpenStreetMap is more about the community than OpenStreetMapFoundation, indeed that's an unmentioned reason why I suggested OpenStreetMap and not the foundation to be credited also in an updated version. Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution rights to the OSMF). It is written in the contract you have signed with the OSMF (contributor terms). If you download data from OpenStreetMap, your licensor is the OSMF. You have authorized the OSMF to distribute the content on their behalf, and to pursue copyright infringements. "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents." There are also some conditions of course, "OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors." And of course in 5 you have mutually agreed, that "except as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents." https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms The excerpts are copied from the current version 1.2.4. There isn't much information (or I didn't find it) to which specific version one has agreed, nor is the text of former versions publicly visible, but AFAIK OSMF has internally a trace of who has agreed to which version, and of course people will have their own copies on their pc. I don't recall agreeing to any updated versions of the Contributor Terms after 2012, and I guess nobody has, you always agreed to the current version when you signed up (or at the license change in 2012), so your contract with the OSMF may be slightly different. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17.04.20 15:33, Mario Frasca wrote: > On 17/04/2020 04:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> What about removing [the trailing "contributors" from the © >> attribution], so that the required credit becomes "© OpenStreetMap" >> (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe "© >> OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap is a >> brand owned by the OpenStreetMapFoundation)? > > I find the explanatory text in parentheses confusing. Agreed, the text in parentheses is problematic. From a moral perspective, explicitly crediting the foundation would very much feel like an unjust appropriation of the mappers' work, regardless of the legal technicality that the OSMF is publishing the database. > I'm fine with associating OSM with its contributors, so if you say that > "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap contributors", I'm fine. +1. To me, the foundation is not OpenStreetMap. It's an entity that exists to *support* OpenStreetMap. (It's good that the OSMF makes this mental distinction visible by using separate domain, osmfoundation.org.) When I think of OpenStreetMap, I think of the many people who help build our map, not a formal incorporated entity. I hope that other mappers also see themselves as part of OpenStreetMap. So as I said before, I like the core of the suggestion – but it could have been presented better by leaving the foundation bit out of it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17/04/2020 04:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What about removing [the trailing "contributors" from the © attribution], so that the required credit becomes "© OpenStreetMap" (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe "© OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap is a brand owned by the OpenStreetMapFoundation)? I find the explanatory text in parentheses confusing. I'm fine with associating OSM with its contributors, so if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap contributors", I'm fine. but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or as a community. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17/04/20 13:20, Christoph Hormann wrote: Independent of what the OSMF suggests in the future - i would probably continue attributing "OpenStreetMap contributors" where feasible to clarify that i am crediting the contributors and not the OSMF. Simply put in these terms, I don't see how "© OpenStreetMap" is referring to the OSM Foundation, but rather it is referring to OSM project and community, so the contributors. m2c Ale ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On Friday 17 April 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > With the exception of imported datasources that are not > re-licensable, you do realise though that the actual licensor of the > data -is- the OSMF? And that attributing "OpenstreetMap contributors" > is at best a sentimental relict (nothing against being sentimental, > but that isn't your argument) and is, if anything, more confusing and > misleading than simply asking for an attribution string that credits > the project? I am not meaning to question the (legal) reasoning behind the suggestion to credit 'OpenStreetMap'. My consideration is purely a moral one. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Am 17.04.2020 um 13:20 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > ... > Independent of what the OSMF suggests in the future - i would probably > continue attributing "OpenStreetMap contributors" where feasible to > clarify that i am crediting the contributors and not the OSMF. With the exception of imported datasources that are not re-licensable, you do realise though that the actual licensor of the data -is- the OSMF? And that attributing "OpenstreetMap contributors" is at best a sentimental relict (nothing against being sentimental, but that isn't your argument) and is, if anything, more confusing and misleading than simply asking for an attribution string that credits the project? Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On Friday 17 April 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "© > OpenStreetMap" (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe > "© OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap is a > brand owned by the OpenStreetMapFoundation)? I think you are pointing already to the main issue with the whole idea here. The main argument brought forward by the advocates of the shortened attribution is "that OSM is its contributors" so both attributions would be functionally the same. However the reality is that the OSMF and the OSM contributors are not the same, their relationship is fairly well defined in the contributor terms. The idea of attribution in the OSM context was always towards the contributors, not to the OSMF which is only meant to serve as custodian and not as the holder of any moral rights w.r.t. the data itself. Shortening the attribution to "© OpenStreetMap" could make it ambiguous and that could serve as a beachhead to a piecemeal reinterpretation of the roles of OSM contributors and OSMF towards building up the OSMF to a holder of moral rights on its own independent of the OSM community. Independent of what the OSMF suggests in the future - i would probably continue attributing "OpenStreetMap contributors" where feasible to clarify that i am crediting the contributors and not the OSMF. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17.04.20 11:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "© > OpenStreetMap" Yes, crediting © OpenStreetMap with the appropriate link would be a good solution. Aside from being more concise, it's a lot less awkward in a non-English or multilingual context. Note that our Legal FAQ¹ already allow this in some circumstances: > Because OpenStreetMap *is* its contributors, you may omit the word > "contributors" if space is limited. So using the snappier attribution in all contexts would also simplify things compared to the status quo of having two different attribution wordings depending on the available space. You're in luck, by the way: The latest draft attribution guideline already proposes this very change. And while there are some problematic aspects of that draft which need to be changed before it can be accepted, your suggestion was popular in past discussions (e.g. in August²), so there's a good chance it will become reality. Tobias ¹ https://wiki.osm.org/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F ² https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/083078.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
On 17.04.20 11:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "© > OpenStreetMap" Yes, crediting © OpenStreetMap with the appropriate link would be a good solution. Aside from being more concise, it's a lot less awkward in a non-English or multilingual context. Note that our Legal FAQ¹ already allow this in some circumstances: > Because OpenStreetMap *is* its contributors, you may omit the word > "contributors" if space is limited. So using the snappier attribution in all contexts would also simplify things compared to the status quo of having two different attribution wordings depending on the available space. You're in luck, by the way: The latest draft attribution guideline already proposes this very change. And while there are some problematic aspects of that draft which need to be changed before it can be accepted, your suggestion was popular in past discussions (e.g. in August²), so there's a good chance it will become reality. Tobias ¹ https://wiki.osm.org/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F ² https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-August/083078.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be necessary to credit the contributors. What about removing this, so that the required credit becomes "© OpenStreetMap" (it could also be © OpenStreetMapFoundation, but maybe "© OpenStreetMap" would be sufficient, given that OpenStreetMap is a brand owned by the OpenStreetMapFoundation)? It would make the credits more concise, and make it easier to have full credits on smaller screen sizes. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
