Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Alexandre Oliveira]

> Other widespread online mapping services also require this kind of
> *attribution
> on the map*, usually even more prominently (brand logo with much bigger
> size than our textual example).

I'd like to emphasize what I said in the previous messages sent to
this thread - OpenStreetMap is a data provider and without data you
don't have a map (in other words: a map is a visualization of a
dataset). Mapbox provides a map (read: visualization of data from
OSM), so why is it okay for Mapbox, which is no secret that they use
OSM data, to put a giant watermark in the corner of the map, but for
them it is absolutely unacceptable to add a small text on the other
corner of the map crediting OSM for the data source? Without OSM,
there would be no data for Mapbox to produce a map.

And I would also like to say that the 2nd version of the draft
proposed by the LWG is as bad as the first draft. The first version
had lots of feedback from the community and it seems to me that the
LWG ignored all this feedback and just went with what corporate users
participating in the LWG proposed.

For example, they are proposing that it would be absolutely acceptable
to attribute OSM in a splash screen that disappears after 3-5 seconds
when you start an application. I have pointed out this controversial
idea, because in the meeting minutes the LWG says a splash screen is
not acceptable, and then proceed to suggest it as an acceptable
attribution because it was suggested by corporations.


I honestly hope that the OSMF rejects the draft as it is right now,
because the current draft provides several breaches to allow companies
like Mapbox and Facebook to undermine the importance of the
OpenStreetMap project.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

To put this more into context, the facebook page does have a link to
OpenStreetMap behind the faint "i", and the majority of contributors may
eventually see this as reasonable attribution for the small map they
initially show, but it is quite clearly not suitable on the bigger popup
map to make everybody who sees the map aware that the data is from
OpenStreetMap. The license is only visible if you click a second time ("map
data legal notices"), while the "© OpenStreetMap" text could be even seen
as misleading (because the license if not presented at the same level).

Whether this is actually a copyright infringement of the license may be up
to a legal decision, although in my interpretation of 4.3 "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." it clearly is not making any
person that is exposed to the work aware that it is from OSM nor of the
license. But it is clear that it is not in line with the OSMF
interpretation of the requirements, we have delineated here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/
*"For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of
the map."*

This is a very essential thing for OSM, it is the guarantee that our word
is spread, users are becoming familiar with our name and ultimately that
our community will grow.
Other widespread online mapping services also require this kind of *attribution
on the map*, usually even more prominently (brand logo with much bigger
size than our textual example).

Cheers
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 27. Apr. 2020 um 19:52 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Oliveira <
rockyt...@gmail.com>:

> Hello!
>
> I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
> OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
>
> According to the wiki page[0]:
>
> > Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".
> > You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open
> Database Licence. This can be achieved by providing a "License" or "Terms"
> link which links to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or
> www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl.
> >
> > This credit needs to appear in a place reasonable to the medium you are
> utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the
> same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map
> supplier. Therefore:
> >- For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or
> mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the
> map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps.
> >- For a printed map, the credit should appear beside the map if that
> is where other such credits appear, and/or in the "acknowledgements"
> section of the publication (often at the start of a book or magazine).
>
> Now, let's take a look at a few projects that use OSM and don't abide
> by our own guidelines:
>
> Facebook: I've seen some complaints over the course of the last year
> regarding lack of attribution from the company. I decided to take a
> look myself this year and was surprised, they actually attribute
> OpenStreetMap, but not in the way described in the wiki page. On
> desktop, there's an information button on the bottom-right corner of
> the map, where the attribution should be, and when you click it
> there's the attribution text. Note that the icon is barely visible and
> I presume most people simply ignore it because it's barely
> noticeable[1].
>
> You may think "well, it's fine". Except it's not. On the mobile
> version of the Facebook page, there's no attribution at all, simply a
> map. And worse, it redirects to Google Maps when you click on it. I
> brought this issue to the IRC channel #osm on OFTC and I was shocked
> at the attitude of some members that "it was fine" and that Facebook's
> attribution cannot be considered a case of "no attribution". I
> disagree. If this is the position of the majority of the OSM
> Foundation and members of the project, we have a problem, and I'll
> explain below. Honestly, it seems to me that because Facebook is a
> sponsor of the project, they can do attribution in whichever way
> they'd like to, or even remove attribution, something like "I pay for
> this project so its rules doesn't apply to me". And from what I've
> gathered by my own research, it looks like the OSMF doesn't even care
> about Facebook's lack of proper attribution.




I am interested in knowing about facebook's reply to the OSMF
notifications, that they are not complying with the attribution
requirements and that they must either attribute in a way that is
compatible with the license, or cease publicly performing works based on
our data. Has there been any reply? What is a reasonable response time for
large scale copyright infringement?

These are screenshots I just took right now, illustrating the issue:
https://i.ibb.co/M2gp82H/Screenshot-2020-11-06-at-10-31-40.png
https://i.ibb.co/rcSHmK3/Screenshot-2020-11-06-at-10-31-51.png

Cheers
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 13.05.20 14:33, Simon Poole wrote:
> as obvious from this thread, it
> does confuse people as to what the actual facts are.

I know it is tedious, but this thread could certainly benefit from
someone providing a recap of the facts, i.e. the core points of the
proposed attribution guideline.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Hidden button is explicitly allowed on mobile devices by the draft:

"In addition, mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction. 
Examples of one interaction include “one click,” such as an icon or 
link that opens a pop-up or new webpage, or a swipe, drag, pinch, etc."

from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline#Mobile_devices

That would misleadingly claim that hidden button (used by Mapbox and
FB and others on mobile devices) is acceptable and fulfills ODBL requirements.

See 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap/master/Mapbox/Mapbox_attributes_itself_2019-12-30.png
for an example in map with hidden button that would fulfill
"mobile devices may have attribution after one interaction".

This specific screenshot from mobile device (low budget smartphone)
also demonstrates that there for full-screen maps there is enough space
for a real attribution.

Though something smaller than logo and "Mapbox" repeated three times
would be also enough.

To repeat: normal user will NOT click on weir "i" button. This is effectively
not displaying attribution.



More info about that specific case at
https://github.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap/blob/master/Mapbox/Mapbox.md#mapbox-is-using-openstreetmap-data-illegally
(yes Mapbox was notified, yes Mapbox ignored it).

May 13, 2020, 14:33 by si...@poole.ch:

>
> Am 13.05.2020 um 13:46 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> ...
>
>> And, no, a typical user will not click on a hidden button or check
>> deeply in settings.
>>
> ...
>
> Nobody ever even remotely indicated that attribution via a "hidden
> button" or deep in any settings was sufficient, in fact the draft
> guideline contained the opposite. Now I do realize the value of
> exaggeration as a rhetoric device, but, as obvious from this thread, it
> does confuse people as to what the actual facts are.
>
> Simon
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.05.2020 um 13:46 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
...
> And, no, a typical user will not click on a hidden button or check
> deeply in settings.
>
...

Nobody ever even remotely indicated that attribution via a "hidden
button" or deep in any settings was sufficient, in fact the draft
guideline contained the opposite. Now I do realize the value of
exaggeration as a rhetoric device, but, as obvious from this thread, it
does confuse people as to what the actual facts are.

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 13, 2020, 12:39 by si...@poole.ch:

>
>
>
> Am 12.05.2020 um 23:03 schrieb Mateusz  Konieczny via talk:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 12, 2020, 05:48 by >> rockyt...@gmail.com>> :
>>


>>> As Joseph said:
>>>
 The attribution goes on the map.
 This is not a difficult requirement to meet.

>>>
>>>
 The most recent version of the guidelines
 drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawncommunity 
 criticism
 about being too generous especially w.r.t. initiallyhidden 
 attribution.

>>>
>>> Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the  guidelines?
>>>
>> I commented on
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Attribution_Guideline
>> but I am unsure is it a good place because I got no reply.
>>
>
> Expecting a reply is unreasonable, taking the comments in to  account not 
> (which we did).
>
>
Allowing to hide attribution on mobile remained present in this proposal and 
AFAIK
it was one of primary reasons why Draft Attribution Guideline is staying as a 
draft for now
rather than being adopted.

(though I was participating in just some meetings on Mumble).

And it deserves an explanation why not showing attribution
is considered as ODBL compatible that requires to ensure that user is aware of 
data source
and license.

And, no, a typical user will not click on a hidden button or check deeply in 
settings.


>> One may also join online meeting of a Legal Working Group
>> and talk there.
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group
>> "The group now meets every 2nd Thursday of the month, at20:00 UTC, 
>> on >> Mumble >> , unless 
>> rescheduled."
>>
>
> As you know the LWG has handed the subject back to the board  months ago, 
> not to mention that we provided ample time and venues  to provide input 
> on the matter and that is long closed. Just  because somebody wasn't 
> paying attention doesn't mean that you  restart a process when they turn 
> up and feel they have a right to  their opinion being heard*.
>
>
> Simon
>
>
> * that was one of the main reasons the OSM licence change was  such a 
> traumatic experience. 
>
>
Well, in that case comments may be useful for next improved version or for a 
board.

There may be a better place to post them, but I am not aware about anything 
better.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Simon Poole]

Am 12.05.2020 um 23:03 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
>
>
>
> May 12, 2020, 05:48 by rockyt...@gmail.com:
>
>
> As Joseph said:
>
> The attribution goes on the map.
> This is not a difficult requirement to meet.
>
>
> The most recent version of the guidelines
> drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community
> criticism
> about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially hidden
> attribution.
>
>
> Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the guidelines?
>
> I commented on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Attribution_Guideline
> but I am unsure is it a good place because I got no reply.

Expecting a reply is unreasonable, taking the comments in to account not
(which we did).

>
> One may also join online meeting of a Legal Working Group
> and talk there.
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group
> "The group now meets every 2nd Thursday of the month, at 20:00 UTC, on
> Mumble , unless rescheduled."
>
As you know the LWG has handed the subject back to the board months ago,
not to mention that we provided ample time and venues to provide input
on the matter and that is long closed. Just because somebody wasn't
paying attention doesn't mean that you restart a process when they turn
up and feel they have a right to their opinion being heard*.

Simon

* that was one of the main reasons the OSM licence change was such a
traumatic experience.



> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 12, 2020, 05:48 by rockyt...@gmail.com:

>>
>>
> As Joseph said:
>
>> The attribution goes on the map.
>> This is not a difficult requirement to meet.
>>
>
>
>> The most recent version of the guidelines
>> drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community criticism
>> about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially hidden attribution.
>>
>
> Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the guidelines?
>
I commented on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Attribution_Guideline
but I am unsure is it a good place because I got no reply.

One may also join online meeting of a Legal Working Group
and talk there.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group
"The group now meets every 2nd Thursday of the month, at 20:00 UTC, on Mumble 
, unless rescheduled."___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Alexandre Oliveira]

> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does 
> not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the 
> copyright
> page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under ODbL for a 
> map that has multiple data sources, then OSM would be violating others' ODbL 
> licenses.

IANAL, but when contacting government agencies in Brazil requesting
permission to use their data, I always ask if the agency is okay with
attribution through the wiki page that the attribution text links to
and they all agree with it, so it's not a violation of the terms of
the license?

> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by a 
> company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with but *is 
> not hosted* by an
> entity. I agree that if someone were to use OSM tiles hosted by OSM, then 
> attribution should be visible in the corner at all times.

This hostility against FLOSS bugs me. Companies are hostile towards
something that is free and libre, with no restriction of use, the only
thing we ask for is attribution so people can be informed about where
the data you're using originated from. And it's not exclusive to OSM,
not crediting FLOSS on purpose because it's "open" is a trend in tech
companies, as mentioned a few replies ago by some user. And what we've
seen here is a clear example of this trend: Mapbox exploiting OSM for
its data without proper attribution (or hiding it), and instead
misdirecting users to think Mapbox created both the data and tile
service.

As mentioned by Martin:

> actually you even have to put a mapbox logo on the map if you show your own 
> data, hosted by mapbox:
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/
>
> Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both 
> the Mapbox wordmark and text attribution.
>
> You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style or 
> custom data hosted by Mapbox.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was required to add a visible attribution
to Mapbox if I used its data and OSM tiles, for example. Or would it
be okay to hide the attribution because I'm using data that "isn't
hosted" by an entity? Or because OSM is FLOSS, a special treatment is
required?

I would like to propose a thought exercise. What is the most important
part of the map, its tiles or its data? I like to think that a map is
a visual representation of data, so a tile would be its visual
representation. A map isn't a map without data, and you can't build a
map tile without data. So, why is it that the visible attribution
should be to its visual part, instead of its data?

One idea I had (and is against my personal beliefs): add DRM to OSM
data, so we can control access and usage by corporate entities that
don't properly attribute OSM. It would be some sort of "reverse-DRM"
(because DRM acts against users, this one would act against
companies). Imagine clicking on a POI in your Mapbox hosted map and
instead of showing its details, it would display "Attribution is
required before you can read the details!", à la
#AttributionIsNotOptional. I'm pretty sure companies would rush and
say the lack of attribution was accidental.

I'm not fond of DRM and I really hope we don't reach this extent of
turning OSM less free because of corporate lobbying against crediting
the crucial part of a map.


As Joseph said:

> The attribution goes on the map.
> This is not a difficult requirement to meet.


> The most recent version of the guidelines
> drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community criticism
> about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially hidden attribution.

Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the guidelines?


-- 
Atenciosamente,
Alexandre Oliveira.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:01, Kathleen Lu via talk
 wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does 
> not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the 
> copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under 
> ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then OSM would be violating 
> others' ODbL licenses.

In clause 4.3, the ODbL explicitly does not actually require any
copyright notices (which I guess includes attribution statements) on
produced works. Instead the notice that must be included (reasonably
calculated to ensure that everyone viewing the produced work aware of
it) is to say that the work has been made using an ODbL database, with
details of how it can be obtained. So in this sense OSM is failing to
comply with the ODbL on the main map, but it's not through lack of
attribution of sources.

What we actually *need* to include on the map is a mention of the
"OpenStreetMap" database, that the data is available under the ODbL,
and a link to where it can be obtained. I'd suggest we should be using
something like "Map data (c) OpenStreetMap, ODbL." Downstream users of
OSM need to do the same (or equivalently reference their own
ODbL-or-equivalent-licensed Derivative Database). This text on
produced works cannot be hidden behind other links.

(Presumably, the way the ODbL was envisaged working with produced
works, is that people viewing them are made away that that underlying
data is re-usable and how to get hold of it. The copyright notices,
attribution etc. then must be delivered if/when they try to access the
raw data.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then 
> OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.

When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the
view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example,
for CC-BY licences:

"...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar
visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including
original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our
Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute
'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any
OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider
OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable
manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license."

[linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ]

ODbL's core attribution requirement ("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") is not
materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the
medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In
other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless
a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued
any such waivers.


> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by 
> a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with 
> but *is not hosted* by an entity.

It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last
(AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested
before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when
OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you
can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like.

Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal
non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen
attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's
themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent
does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does.
You can go and check these. I did.

The key word here is "principal". From your previous message:

> 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

The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority
for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes
two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent.

That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to
OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not
try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by
talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg.

Richard

[1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and
your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one
click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger
and more prominent than several other cases under discussion.



--
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] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:14 AM Alexandre Oliveira 
wrote:

> > Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo
> from Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It
> would be quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make
> keeping that logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles.
> > Mapbox employees have contributed to OSM for years. That data belongs to
> Mapbox but is shared with the world through OSM and ODbL. Attribution for
> that doesn't appear on-map unless the user is also using Mapbox tiles.
>
> So, if I understood it correctly, you're implying that it's totally
> fine to hide data source attribution several clicks away or not
> attributing at all? And that the attribution on the corners of the map
> are only feasible if you're using OSM's tiles?
>
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then OSM
would be violating others' ODbL licenses.


> What I don't understand is the positioning of corporate users of OSM.
> Sure, Mapbox has a business model that depends on attribution and even
> then you're obliged to follow their terms of use and policies if you
> choose their service. How is that different from OSM? Both provide the
> same services, you can choose both Mapbox and OSM for tiles or data,
> and even then, you are required to follow their licenses and
> terms/policies.
>

The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by a
company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with but *is
not hosted* by an entity. I agree that if someone were to use OSM tiles
hosted by OSM, then attribution should be visible in the corner at all
times.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Rory McCann]

On 02.05.20 16:54, Yves wrote:

IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association
change would be preferable to really have a more representative idea
of the contributor feelings. Could the OSMF set up such a process? 
Some of the attributions cases are certainly simple enough to obtain

a momentum, while others (multiple sources, small maps,...) are more
complicated and could be subject to another round.
The attribution requirement is set out in the ODbL, changing that is not 
straight forward. The OSMF will adopt some Guidelines on how it believes 
one can abide by what the licence says. Even if the Guidelines say “You 
must do X and Y”, the ODbL might be interpreted in a court to say 
something else (weaker or stronger).


The Articles of Association of the OpenStreetMap Foundation don't cover 
the OpenStreetMap licence, changing the AoA doesn't affect the licence. 
In theory the OSM Foundation membership can force the board to do things 
with a “resolution”, which is a sort of “public vote”.


But this is getting side tracked.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 02 May 2020, Simon Poole wrote:
> >> The only time in the past this
> >
> >was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC.
>
> That is not correct, the licence change process has never been
> invoked.

Yes, sorry - the contributor terms were created as part of the move from 
CC-BY-SA to ODbL so the license change procedure defined by them could 
not have been the basis of that license change obviously.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Simon Poole]

Am 2. Mai 2020 15:44:33 MESZ schrieb Christoph Hormann :
>
>> The only time in the past this 
>was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC.

That is not correct, the licence change process has never been invoked.


-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Yves]

I was thinking of a, b, c,... as different use cases of attribution. 

Le 2 mai 2020 17:35:47 GMT+02:00, Mario Frasca  a écrit :
>On 02/05/2020 09:54, Yves wrote:
>> IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association
>change would be preferable to really have a more representative idea of
>the contributor feelings. Could the OSMF set up such a process?
>
>only related to the voting method, what method is used currently?  when
>
>you offer more than two options, and you want to choose one, there's 
>criteria to consider, and "first past the post" is a bad strategy.
>
>if you like reading things in latin, there's the original literature 
>/Ars notandi/, /Ars eleccionis/, and /Alia ars eleccionis/ by 
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Llull/
>/
>
>I think this is a very clear example: 
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Example:_Voting_on_the_location_of_Tennessee's_capital
>
>and otherwise a more detailed description here:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method (this is used by Debian).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Mario Frasca]

On 02/05/2020 09:54, Yves wrote:

IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association change 
would be preferable to really have a more representative idea of the 
contributor feelings. Could the OSMF set up such a process?


only related to the voting method, what method is used currently?  when 
you offer more than two options, and you want to choose one, there's 
criteria to consider, and "first past the post" is a bad strategy.


if you like reading things in latin, there's the original literature 
/Ars notandi/, /Ars eleccionis/, and /Alia ars eleccionis/ by 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramon_Llull/

/

I think this is a very clear example: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Example:_Voting_on_the_location_of_Tennessee's_capital


and otherwise a more detailed description here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method (this is used by Debian).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Yves]

Le 2 mai 2020 16:21:33 GMT+02:00, "Rory McCann (OSMF Board)" 
 a écrit :
>On 02.05.20 14:01, Yves wrote:
>> Could somebody enlight me about the new Attribution Guidelines
>process? 
>> How it is envisioned to adopt the document that is currently worked 
>> upon? A vote, a decision for the board, or else?
>
>The OSMF Board to vote on it/something, making it “The Attribution 
>Guidelines of the OSM Foundation”.
>
>Rory

IMHO, a a/b/c/d kind of vote like for the last Article of Association change 
would be preferable to really have a more representative idea of the 
contributor feelings. Could the OSMF set up such a process?
Some of the attributions cases are certainly simple enough to obtain a 
momentum, while others (multiple sources, small maps,...) are more complicated 
and could be subject to another round. 

Yves 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Rory McCann (OSMF Board)]

On 02.05.20 14:01, Yves wrote:
Could somebody enlight me about the new Attribution Guidelines process? 
How it is envisioned to adopt the document that is currently worked 
upon? A vote, a decision for the board, or else?


The OSMF Board to vote on it/something, making it “The Attribution 
Guidelines of the OSM Foundation”.


Rory

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 02 May 2020, Yves wrote:
>
> Also, what is this relicencing mentioned in the LWG minutes?

This refers to the idea of initiating a license change process.

The license change process is described in the contributor terms:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms

It requires an OSMF members vote and a 2/3 majority support from the 
active OSM contributors in addition.  The only time in the past this 
was done was with the change to the ODbL in 2012 IIRC.

I won't publicly speculate on the motives of LWG members to float this 
idea - everyone can draw their own conclusions here... ;-)

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Yves]

With Christoph adding a counterpoint to the draft guideline from February, the 
LWG minutes evoking a topic about relicencing, I'm a bit lost.

Could somebody enlight me about the new Attribution Guidelines process? How it 
is envisioned to adopt the document that is currently worked upon? A vote, a 
decision for the board, or else? 

Wherever this goes, it takes time and we sure don't want the people thinking 
hard and putting work on the attribution guideline text to face the wall 
described by Christoph, this is why I wonder about the process. 

Also, what is this relicencing mentioned in the LWG minutes? 
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 30 April 2020, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> The most recent version of 
> the guidelines drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn
> community criticism about being too generous especially w.r.t.
> initially hidden attribution.

Wow, that is quite a weird statement considering how broad, deep and 
sustained much of the criticizm from the community has been on the 
direction of the LWG proposal for many months.  If the board 
collectively has the impression they are 'almost there' you might need 
to prepare for the collision of that perception with reality.

Unless of course you have worked on a fundamental redesign of the 
guideline we are not yet aware of...

If you have the impression that the LWG has taken into account or has 
engaged in a constructive argument with the community regarding the 
criticizm of their draft re-reading the many discussions of the past 
months on that subject - and possible engaging in a discussion of the 
criticizm if there is need for clarification or explanation - would be 
highly advisable.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Alexandre Oliveira]

> Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo from 
> Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It would be 
> quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make keeping that 
> logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles.
> Mapbox employees have contributed to OSM for years. That data belongs to 
> Mapbox but is shared with the world through OSM and ODbL. Attribution for 
> that doesn't appear on-map unless the user is also using Mapbox tiles.

So, if I understood it correctly, you're implying that it's totally
fine to hide data source attribution several clicks away or not
attributing at all? And that the attribution on the corners of the map
are only feasible if you're using OSM's tiles?

What I don't understand is the positioning of corporate users of OSM.
Sure, Mapbox has a business model that depends on attribution and even
then you're obliged to follow their terms of use and policies if you
choose their service. How is that different from OSM? Both provide the
same services, you can choose both Mapbox and OSM for tiles or data,
and even then, you are required to follow their licenses and
terms/policies.

Let's take a look at a situation. If I use Mapbox and remove their
attribution, I'm violating their terms and could have my service
suspended or legal action could be taken. OSM is exactly the same; if
you don't attribute or hide attribution you're violating the terms of
the license.

It looks like that corporate users are lobbying for relaxing
attribution guidelines so they don't have to bother properly
attributing data that comes from an open database. Asking again, why
is it so difficult to just add a piece of text on the map attributing
OSM? You're not paying to use that data as it's free, and now you
don't even want to acknowledge the hard work volunteers have put into
making OSM a great geodata database.

I thought it would be different with Mapbox as I've seen several
projects that use it with OSM data, but it looks like every corporate
user has a similar opinion regarding attribution.

-- 
Atenciosamente,
Alexandre Oliveira.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Apr 2020, at 17:20, Tom Lee via talk  wrote:
> 
> But I do think they are a useful signal as we consider what "reasonable" 
> could mean.


regarding the license, it clearly says  reasonably calculated to make any 
person aware, however unreasonable someone might find this is not the question. 

Cheers Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The source linked, for village boundaries in India, requires printed
attribution on the map or a link for online maps:


“Attribute

Please use the following lines to attribute the maps if you use in your
work. You could link instead of printing the URLs in case of web projects.

Villages Maps Provided by Indian Village Boundaries Project [
http://projects.datameet.org/indian_village_boundaries/] by Data{Meet}. Its
made available under the Open Database License (ODbL)[
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/].”


So that source of data also expects visible attribution from map makers.


— Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:20 AM Tom Lee via talk 
wrote:

> At the risk of repeating others' words, I strongly encourage participants
> in this conversation to review the draft attribution guideline (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline) and
> previous conversations regarding attribution on this list. It would be hard
> to overstate the depth of experience that the legal working group has
> regarding these issues, so it has been surprising to me to see their
> perspective receive so little attention.
>
> Because I know not everyone will dig back into those listserv archives, I
> want to highlight one point that has been previously made: OpenStreetMap
> itself does not meet the ODbL attribution standards that are being
> presented as obvious by some parties to this conversation. This applies not
> only to several ODbL data source attributions present on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors (but not on the map) but
> also to the many ODbL data sources that can be found under
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Data_sources (note that not
> all of these sources may be in use; this part of the wiki is not
> sufficiently organized to be sure).
>
> OpenStreetMap is by far the most significant project using ODbL, and when
> geodata is published under ODbL terms (as frequently happens in France[1])
> or when it is adopted by a geodata project (such as Datameet's work on
> Indian village boundaries[2]
> ) it is
> typically with the intent of making the data useful to OpenStreetMap. It
> doesn't seem plausible that the volunteers working on those Indian village
> boundaries expect their preferred attribution[3] to be part of the UI that
> greets any OSM user. This suggests to me that volunteers' attribution
> expectations are not as uniform as has been suggested in this thread.
>
> Reviewing the diversity of attribution policies found under
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Data_sources might prove
> more illuminating than rehashing our understanding of Google's terms and
> what they might or might not do for enterprise customers. A review of the
> many custom government licenses and amended CC-BY licenses that OSM
> volunteers have added to those wiki pages will show a variety of approaches
> to attribution, almost none of which meet the level of obtrusiveness
> proposed at various times in this thread. Obviously, the ODbL is its own
> beast; as others have noted, the practices of the rest of the open mapping
> world and commercial mapping industry need not bind it. But I do think they
> are a useful signal as we consider what "reasonable" could mean.
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Sources_de_donn%C3%A9es_potentielles/France
> [2] http://projects.datameet.org/indian_village_boundaries/
> [3] "Villages Maps Provided by Indian Village Boundaries Project [
> http://projects.datameet.org/indian_village_boundaries/] by Data{Meet}.
> Its made available under the Open Database License (ODbL)[
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/];
> ___
> 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] Let's talk Attribution

[Tobias Knerr]

Hi Alexandre,

it's true that too many projects using OSM do not provide the required
attribution. However, I'm surprised that you got reactions of
"this is fine" for some of the more egregious examples you mention in
your email. While individual mappers will of course hold a wide range of
opinions, that is not the position of the OSM Foundation.

On 27.04.20 19:49, Alexandre Oliveira wrote:
> On the mobile
> version of the Facebook page, there's no attribution at all, simply a
> map. And worse, it redirects to Google Maps when you click on it.

I assume this is the same issue as the one described here:
https://github.com/grischard/osm-lacking-attribution/issues/8

Facebook was contacted about this specific problem 2.5 months ago. They
have acknowledged it as an issue, but have unfortunately failed to
correct it so far. For now, we still have hope that they will just
finally fix it. At some point, we may have to take further steps, but we
haven't really come to an agreement on what those would be.

For OSMF action on issues which are less clear-cut (i.e. attribution is
present, but insufficient), the main roadblock is that we have not yet
approved the attribution guidelines which will make it clearer what
style of attribution we expect. Of course, data users are already
obligated to follow our license today, but hopefully the guidelines will
help to eliminate any ambiguity about whether certain controversial
practices are acceptable. The most recent version of the guidelines
drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community criticism
about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially hidden attribution.
We are working on them, and once they are approved, we will point to
them when we contact data users about low-quality attribution.

I admit that the OSMF has been frustratingly slow to make progress on
attribution, and I hope we will get better about this.
But there's a lot that can be achieved by the community in a distributed
manner as well. You've already mentioned the #AttributionIsNotOptional
initiative as an example. It's not rare to hear success stories about
mappers simply sending a friendly reminder to some companies, especially
small-scale users who made a honest mistake and forgot about the
attribution. It also helps to report lacking attribution to Guillaume's
previously mentioned issue tracker¹ – the board is keeping an eye on
that and prioritizing issues based on whether the site or app has
already been contacted, how bad the attribution is, and on how visible
the site is.

In any case, I'd like to emphasize that a slow response to missing
attribution should not be mistaken for being ok with it. Nor does it
mean that we will not act more decisively in the future. Visible
attribution is a key requirement of our license, and not optional.

Tobias

 ¹ https://github.com/grischard/osm-lacking-attribution

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Tom Lee via talk]

At the risk of repeating others' words, I strongly encourage participants
in this conversation to review the draft attribution guideline (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Attribution_Guideline) and
previous conversations regarding attribution on this list. It would be hard
to overstate the depth of experience that the legal working group has
regarding these issues, so it has been surprising to me to see their
perspective receive so little attention.

Because I know not everyone will dig back into those listserv archives, I
want to highlight one point that has been previously made: OpenStreetMap
itself does not meet the ODbL attribution standards that are being
presented as obvious by some parties to this conversation. This applies not
only to several ODbL data source attributions present on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors (but not on the map) but
also to the many ODbL data sources that can be found under
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Data_sources (note that not
all of these sources may be in use; this part of the wiki is not
sufficiently organized to be sure).

OpenStreetMap is by far the most significant project using ODbL, and when
geodata is published under ODbL terms (as frequently happens in France[1])
or when it is adopted by a geodata project (such as Datameet's work on
Indian village boundaries[2]
) it is typically
with the intent of making the data useful to OpenStreetMap. It doesn't seem
plausible that the volunteers working on those Indian village boundaries
expect their preferred attribution[3] to be part of the UI that greets any
OSM user. This suggests to me that volunteers' attribution expectations are
not as uniform as has been suggested in this thread.

Reviewing the diversity of attribution policies found under
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Data_sources might prove more
illuminating than rehashing our understanding of Google's terms and what
they might or might not do for enterprise customers. A review of the many
custom government licenses and amended CC-BY licenses that OSM volunteers
have added to those wiki pages will show a variety of approaches to
attribution, almost none of which meet the level of obtrusiveness proposed
at various times in this thread. Obviously, the ODbL is its own beast; as
others have noted, the practices of the rest of the open mapping world and
commercial mapping industry need not bind it. But I do think they are a
useful signal as we consider what "reasonable" could mean.

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Sources_de_donn%C3%A9es_potentielles/France
[2] http://projects.datameet.org/indian_village_boundaries/
[3] "Villages Maps Provided by Indian Village Boundaries Project [
http://projects.datameet.org/indian_village_boundaries/] by Data{Meet}. Its
made available under the Open Database License (ODbL)[
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/];
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Apr 2020, at 23:17, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo from 
> Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It would be 
> quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make keeping that 
> logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles. 
> Separately, it *is* possible to use certain Mapbox data without using Mapbox 
> tiles.


actually you even have to put a mapbox logo on the map if you show your own 
data, hosted by mapbox:
https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/

Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both the 
Mapbox wordmark and text attribution. 

You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style or 
custom data hosted by Mapbox.



Cheers Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:22, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you
> can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what
> Martin quoted as:
>
> „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,...“
>
> is in the way that the determination if any Person that uses, views,
> accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
> Work becomes aware that Content was obtained from the Database from the
> attribution provided needs to *be based on reason*.  So far no one has
> even attempted to explain the reasoning behind the expectation that a
> user of an application with hidden attribution becomes aware that
> Content was obtained from the Database.

Indeed. To put this another way -- and a lot of people seem to be
mis-understanding this -- whatever attribution an OSM licensee chooses
to employ, the licensee needs to be able to make a reasonable argument
that *every* user who views, interacts with, etc the produced work
will become aware that the content has come from OSM. Not just some
users, or those that choose to go looking for the data source, but
every user. The "reasonable" does not refer to how good the
attribution needs to be, or the expectation/ease of each user finding
it, or the space it takes up on the screen. It refers to the
calculation made by the licensee. The attribution must ensure -- in
the reasonable view of the licensee -- that every user will see it.

I fail to see how not showing a visible attribution to every user in
the normal course of their interaction with a produced work could
possibly be "reasonably calculated" to make everyone aware of the OSM
provenance. Hiding the attribution behind an "(i)" that you know most
users won't click on, or putting in on a splash screen that disappears
so quickly people won't get a chance to read it does not comply with
the ODbL in my opinion. I think we need to accept that this is what
our licence says, and take better steps to ensure licensees understand
this.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

You and Alexandre are correct that Google does not (usually) allow you to
use their data off of their platform. According to Google's Terms, you
usually cannot use just the data and not the tile server. Google does,
however, make exceptions for paying customers.

Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo from
Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It would be
quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make keeping
that logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles.
Separately, it *is* possible to use certain Mapbox data without using
Mapbox tiles. Mapbox employees have contributed to OSM for years. That data
belongs to Mapbox but is shared with the world through OSM and ODbL.
Attribution for that doesn't appear on-map unless the user is also using
Mapbox tiles.

The key difference between data and tiles is that one can use hundreds of
data sources in one map, but only one or a handful of service providers for
tiles, geocoding, etc. Both user expectations and reasonableness depend on
context.

-Kathleen

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:01 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mi., 29. Apr. 2020 um 04:05 Uhr schrieb Kathleen Lu <
> kathleen...@mapbox.com>:
>
>> I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
>> indication of what is reasonable.
>> ...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 do have an example that comes to mind: imagine you use Google Geocoding.
> This obligates you to use the results in the Google ecosystem, and this has
> the requirement to display a Google logo on the map.
> Another example would maybe be mapbox? If you use data they have
> transformed, you will have to put a mapbox logo on the screen.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Apr 28, 2020, 06:48 by si...@poole.ch:

>
> Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
>> OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
>>
> There was just a (nearly 100 messages) long thread on the subject here 
> not to mention a longish consultation last year, with multiple in person
> sessions, which covered all the issues you touch on.
>

Is outcome of that discussions summarized anywhere?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 29. Apr. 2020 um 04:05 Uhr schrieb Kathleen Lu <
kathleen...@mapbox.com>:

> I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
> indication of what is reasonable.
> ...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 do have an example that comes to mind: imagine you use Google Geocoding.
This obligates you to use the results in the Google ecosystem, and this has
the requirement to display a Google logo on the map.
Another example would maybe be mapbox? If you use data they have
transformed, you will have to put a mapbox logo on the screen.

Cheers
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 29 April 2020, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote:
> [...]
> 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.

For clarity once again - although i have said this many times in the 
past and it is frankly annoying that i have to repeat myself this way 
because corporate lobbyists continue presenting/implying alternative 
facts.

OSM data is subject to the ODbL.  How it needs to be attributed is 
determined by the wording of the ODbL in the context of how OSM data is 
being produced through volunteer work (i.e. the contributor terms).

Geodata used by Google, Here, TomTom etc. is distributed and used under 
proprietary, non-open licenses which are very different from the ODbL 
and do not contain attribution requirements in any way comparable to 
that of the ODbL.  Hence attribution on use of such data sources 
(assuming it is actually attribution for the data source - which as 
Alexandre points out is not necessarily always the case) has 
*absolutely nothing* to do with attribution of OSM data use.  What you 
call commercial data providers depend on the economic viability of 
their licenses.  OSM does not.  If your business model does not allow 
using OSM data and complying with the ODbL at the same time you cannot 
use OSM data.

And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you 
can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what 
Martin quoted as:

„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,...“

is in the way that the determination if any Person that uses, views, 
accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
Work becomes aware that Content was obtained from the Database from the 
attribution provided needs to *be based on reason*.  So far no one has 
even attempted to explain the reasoning behind the expectation that a 
user of an application with hidden attribution becomes aware that 
Content was obtained from the Database.

But even completely disregarding these points of fundamental logic - the 
point the OSM community primarily needs to discuss in the context of 
providing practical guidance on attribution is what expectations 
mappers have when they agree to the contributor terms regarding the 
attribution provided by data users.  Any guidance the OSM community 
provides to data users regarding attribution needs to be fundamentally 
based on and compatible with that to have any social legitimacy.  And 
so far i have not heard any active mapper stating they expect anything 
other than clearly visible (or more generally: directly perceivable) 
attribution.  There are lots of mappers who state they don't care about 
attribution but not caring does not mean not expecting.  When there is 
talk among mappers about seeing OSM data use 'in the wild' people 
almost always are interested in the attribution - even those who would 
prefer if OSM had chosen PD as license.  The only defense of 
insufficient attribution i have heard from mappers so far is the 
willingness to settle for less (like because they don't care, because 
they would prefer a more liberal license anyway and are therefore fine 
with data users violating the ODbL or because they feel pity for the 
hardships of corporate data users in developing a business model that 
works while providing sufficient attribution to OSM).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Alexandre Oliveira]

> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

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.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 28. Apr 2020, at 23:34, Kathleen Lu via talk 
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it seem logical to look what others are
> doing, when we must establish what this means: „ 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,...“
>
> It says „reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views,...aware“,
> any. To me this reads as if it has to be put very prominently, it has to be
> thrown into everyone’s face so that they become aware. Looking at the
> industry standard seems a good indication to find out what is “reasonable”,
> would you agree?
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Apr 2020, at 23:34, Kathleen Lu via talk  
> wrote:
> 
> 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


I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it seem logical to look what others are doing, 
when we must establish what this means: „ 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,...“

It says „reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views,...aware“, 
any. To me this reads as if it has to be put very prominently, it has to be 
thrown into everyone’s face so that they become aware. Looking at the industry 
standard seems a good indication to find out what is “reasonable”, would you 
agree?

Cheers Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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.

—Joseph Eisenberg
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

> the header of the code, that's the place where the attribution is expected.
>
> roughly equivalent to some corner in the displayed map, that's what the
> license says, right?
>

I do not think these two things are at all equivalent. OSM is a database,
so the equivalent attribution notice to the header in code would be a text
file that accompanies the database. The UI of an application that uses a
database is the equivalent of the UI of an application that uses code.

the point which surprises me (and IIUC Skyler), is that you state
> something in the license, then you seem not to particularly care if it's
> respected, or not.
>

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
The FAQ is an interpretation of the ODbL that some people in the OSMF wrote
up many years ago, and some of that interpretation is from before the
license change. It is not clear that everything in the FAQ is a correct
interpretation of the ODbL. Regarding issues other than attribution, the
OSMF has updated it's license interpretations several times over the years.
It has been debated, but not decided, whether the FAQ interpretations on
attribution should be updated.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Mario Frasca]

On 28/04/2020 15:01, Kathleen Lu wrote:
I know no major open source license that requires attribution *in the 
UI that the user sees without clicking on anything*. 


oh, but thinking of code I don't particularly care about the UI.

I care about the code, and if I release some code as GPL, you as a user 
have the right to receive the code, and you as a further developer have 
the right to do whatever you want with the code, but NOT to change the 
license, nor to remove me from the copyright holders.


so again you as a user looking into the code are expected to find my 
name (and that of all previous and subsequent authors).


the header of the code, that's the place where the attribution is expected.

roughly equivalent to some corner in the displayed map, that's what the 
license says, right?


the point which surprises me (and IIUC Skyler), is that you state 
something in the license, then you seem not to particularly care if it's 
respected, or not.


MF


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I find this view quite surprising coming from a software engineer.
I know no major open source license that requires attribution *in the UI
that the user sees without clicking on anything*.
Every example of open source license attribution I have seen is after
several clicks, e.g. Menu->About->Legal Notices->Software
When asked if OSM attribution is the same as open source attribution, my
answer has always been "no, OSM attribution is much stricter."
-Kathleen

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:57 AM Mario Frasca  wrote:

> for what it matters, I completely subscribe Skyler's position.
>
> I'm a software engineer, and I produce GPL and AGPL software (not LGPL),
> but I do not have the power to enforce anything, I just hope that people
> will be considerate.
>
> it's surprising that the lax attitude comes from a committee having all
> necessary power.
>
> MF
>
> On 27/04/2020 22:43, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> > As a new contributor, and a software engineer, it is surprising to learn
> that there is such a lax attitude towards lack of attribution. Every open
> source software license I can think of has attribution as a central tenet.
> People spend their free time on this stuff, and they do it because they
> care about it. There are people who get pretty upset when they find others
> using their hard work for their own gain without so much as a footnote
> (which is really all the guidelines appear to be asking for).
> >
> > Attribution matters. It lets people know what the project is and that it
> positively impacted their lives. And equally importantly, it bestows a
> modicum of respect and gratitude to the volunteers who spend their free
> time making the project what it is.
> >
> > --
> > Skyler
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Let's talk Attribution

[Mario Frasca]

for what it matters, I completely subscribe Skyler's position.

I'm a software engineer, and I produce GPL and AGPL software (not LGPL), 
but I do not have the power to enforce anything, I just hope that people 
will be considerate.


it's surprising that the lax attitude comes from a committee having all 
necessary power.


MF

On 27/04/2020 22:43, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:

As a new contributor, and a software engineer, it is surprising to learn that 
there is such a lax attitude towards lack of attribution. Every open source 
software license I can think of has attribution as a central tenet. People 
spend their free time on this stuff, and they do it because they care about it. 
There are people who get pretty upset when they find others using their hard 
work for their own gain without so much as a footnote (which is really all the 
guidelines appear to be asking for).

Attribution matters. It lets people know what the project is and that it 
positively impacted their lives. And equally importantly, it bestows a modicum 
of respect and gratitude to the volunteers who spend their free time making the 
project what it is.

--
Skyler

___
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] Let's talk Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Apr. 2020 um 06:51 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

>
> Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
> > OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
> >
> There was just a (nearly 100 messages) long thread on the subject here
> not to mention a longish consultation last year, with multiple in person
> sessions, which covered all the issues you touch on.



FWIW, it is a recurring topic and was discussed not only recently but many
many times in the past years. Some projects not attributing in a very
obvious way would not be tolerated by other data providers (e.g. Google,
Here), so it clearly isn't the industry standard of attributing map data to
have the attribution one or more clicks away from the map. Common
attribution requirements are _on_ the map.
Last year, we were told that a new official OSMF attribution guideline was
just about to be released. In March you let us know we should not "hold our
breath" for the new attribution guidance to come out any soon:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2375#issuecomment-605423823

It does not mean we do not have such guidance, it is already there, in the
legal FAQ:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F

"This credit needs to appear in a place that is reasonable to the medium or
means you are utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit
OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be
expected by any other map supplier. Therefore:... For a *browsable
electronic map* (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application),
the credit should typically appear in the corner of the map, as commonly
seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps."


Cheers
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Simon Poole]

Am 27.04.2020 um 19:49 schrieb Alexandre Oliveira:
> Hello!
>
> I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with
> OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
>
There was just a (nearly 100 messages) long thread on the subject here 
not to mention a longish consultation last year, with multiple in person
sessions, which covered all the issues you touch on.

Simon 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Skyler Hawthorne]

As a new contributor, and a software engineer, it is surprising to learn that 
there is such a lax attitude towards lack of attribution. Every open source 
software license I can think of has attribution as a central tenet. People 
spend their free time on this stuff, and they do it because they care about it. 
There are people who get pretty upset when they find others using their hard 
work for their own gain without so much as a footnote (which is really all the 
guidelines appear to be asking for).

Attribution matters. It lets people know what the project is and that it 
positively impacted their lives. And equally importantly, it bestows a modicum 
of respect and gratitude to the volunteers who spend their free time making the 
project what it is.

--
Skyler

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk