Christoph Hormann wrote: > It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution > (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service > or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more > prominently than OSM.
That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one. "Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the ODbL. The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying "there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause. But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to be at least on the same level of prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL. > Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much > like being written by corporate representatives Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :) Richard [1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
