Why is it clear that the hammer couldn't be a replacement for the OSM copyright?
Has the Legal WG stated that a symbol that linked to our copyright & license statements would not meet the requirements of the ODBL? Right now, I think we're all speculating. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Alex Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > > The edit concept is very interesting. This was something crossing my mind > as well when writing up the response to design feedback today. If we had > very direct instructions for editing in OSM, we could push users pretty > directly to that. The main problem for using the edit paradigm as a guiding > light for the mark proposed here is that many maps made of OSM data aren't > actually live updated or not updated at all. This led us to throw away an > early version of the mark which used an edit pen. I hope to share more of > our previous mark designs soon in a follow up post, I think this is > worthwhile fleshing out more. > > My second point is this: The central idea of this proposal is to promote > OSM even if OSM is really just providing the data. I feel we won't get much > pick up if we promote an additional element for maps that are produced > works, ever more often on mobile, ever more often composed from mutliple > sources. > > It's clear now that the hammer won't be an acceptable replacement to "© > OpenStreetMap contributors" but I'm hoping we can come up with something > that is all of the below: > > - satisfactory from a legal standpoint > - attractive to click through > - sticky as a symbol > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Kai Krueger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > may I throw a related, but slightly different concept, out there for > > discussion? > > > > I think some of the confusion between "contributor mark" and "attribution > > mark" is that they may be entirely different things. From the design I > have > > seen so far it seems indeed more like a "contributor mark" than an > > "attribution mark", but you are planning on using it as an "attribution > > mark" > > > > I'll give an example to try and clarify what I mean by "contributor > mark" as > > opposed to "attribution mark": > > > > Wikipedia have OpenStreetMap integration into articles. I.e. if you open > a > > geocoded wikipedia article you can click in the top right corner on > either > > the globe symbol in e.g. the English Wikipedia or the textual link "Map" > in > > e.g. the German Wikipedia which opens an inline map into the article > showing > > the place based on an OSM map. > > > > There were considerations on adding an "edit" link to the map, as it > would > > a) be fitting to Wikipedia and b) help OSM gain new contributors as it > can > > capitalize on the huge user base of Wikipedia. > > > > However, one concern with adding an edit link was to explain to the > > Wikipedia user why after clicking on the edit link they suddenly landed > on > > this "odd" page called OpenStreetMap which wants a new user name and > > password from you. How does this relate to Wikipedia where they actually > > wanted to be? What is the concept behind OpenStreetMap? How and what can > I > > edit? > > > > So the idea was to redirect first time map editors (not logged into OSM > and > > don't have an OSM cookie) via an explanatory contributor page before > sending > > them to the editor page. > > > > To Wikipedia users the concept of users editing the content is already > > familiar, but on many other third party sites that use OSM maps, the > > relation between the page they came from and OSM is likely even less > clear > > to users. > > > > Therefor having people redirect through a explanatory page would be even > > more helpful. I think the contributor page as presented here could be a > > really nice basis for such a page. > > > > So instead of replacing attribution, the contributor mark is an > additional > > component acting as a well recognizable "edit this map" button with the > > underlying explanatory page for new contributors. > > > > OSM could then encourage everyone who uses OSM maps to add this > contributor > > mark / button to really try and capitalize the growing share of OSM users > > into new mappers by providing a more user friendly integration. To > Website > > providers this would also be a benefit, as with including a few lines of > > simple html / javascript, they can help improve the maps they are using > and > > identify them selves as real supporters to the OSM movement. > > > > In that case imho the size and design of the current proposed > "contributor > > mark" is much more appropriate than as an "attribution mark" > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Kai > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/RFC-OSM-contributor-mark-tp5743962p5744950.html > > Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > Alex Barth > http://twitter.com/lxbarth > tel (+1) 202 250 3633 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org [email protected] 206-676-2347 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> osm: Historical OSM<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM> / my OSM user page <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> t: @GWHAThistory <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory> f: GWHAThistory <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
