Hi Pieter Thanks for your reply. Replying inline:
On woensdag 3 augustus 2016 15:49 Pieter-Jan Pauwels wrote: > “What do you mean we can use Images on Google Images? Then why would they > make them available in the first place?” I believe you meant "What do you mean we can*not* use Images on Google Images?" Assuming that: > (...) I have a non-print marketing background and I can tell you nobody knows > the anything about licenses in re-using materials (except contributors and > legal counselors). I’ve been evangelising open licenses for over 2 years now > and I still get the same reaction from high level marketeers to uni students: > “What do you mean we cannot use Images on Google Images? Then why would they > make them available in the first place?” And that’s just for images, let > alone, data or virtual maps. Really? How unprofessional... > So yes contact them, but don’t start with going in offensive mode by tapping > them on the fingers. Awareness and open discussions bring in more souls to > the (l)(r)ight side. You're right. I kind of assumed that given the scale of this they must be knowing what they do. > Maybe we should consider more info on http://osm.be/nl/usage > <http://osm.be/nl/usage> about how the license applies when graphically > copying or screenshotting the map, because now it’s very data focused, no? It's like they created their own style. That also contributed to me thinking they knew what they were doing. (Or they just used a rendering I haven't seen before.) > (...) > > > On 03 Aug 2016, at 15:30, Ruben Maes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have a feeling that they were actually aware of the attribution > > requirement, but deliberately didn't do it because it's difficult for us to > > act on. -- This message is OpenPGP signed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
