On Friday 01 March 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in > > particular with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to > > pave over this conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as > > possible without this resulting in gross inconsistencies. And in a > > way it is understandable if coporate data users use this as a basis > > to try to take this a step further. > > ... > > I would actually dispute the characterisation, there are two key > motivations behind the guidance we've given:
I should probably not have suggested that everyone involved was consciously aware of the context i described. None the less - i talked to many people over the years involved in the OSMF on these matters (board and working groups) and one thing that was communicated consistently is that satisfying different, also contradicting, political and economic interests and the political viability of certain interpretations of the license within the power structure in the OSMF at the moment (where throughout this time corporate interests always had a significant voice) was a significant point of consideration in many cases. As said my problem with that is not that this happened, it is that this was a superficial measure and it did not bring us towards an agreement in the community if hard attribution and share-alike requirements should be a fundamental part of the social contract that shapes and defines the OSM community. > There are no guidelines that impact or weaken the application of the > ODbL wrt attribution of OSM, nor are is there any weakening of how > the ODbL applies to actual OSM data or derivatives. As you are aware what the community guidelines so far say about attribution is not that much, most of them is about share-alike. The most relevant document for attribution so far is the license and legal FAQ which IIRC predates the community guidelines. For share-alike and the community guidelines my characterization as "interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this resulting in gross inconsistencies" does seem a correct characterization. And i do not necessarily disagree with that, my problem is more the inconsistencies i see in some of the interpretations which i have pointed out in discussion on several occasions - like https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2018-January/thread.html#8648 My hope is that future new guidelines as well as refinements of existing ones take such lessons learned into account and put the viability of what i called "the social contract among mappers and between mappers and data users" above other goals. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
