Thank you for your work! I believe that clearly documenting our expectations is a very important step towards solving the current problems surrounding attribution. It will help well-intentioned data users to avoid accidentally messing up OSM attribution, and it leaves fewer excuses for the less well-intentioned ones – making it easier for us to put pressure on them to improve their practices.
I do have a couple of questions/comments about the current draft: * Can you confirm that the current attribution practices on Wikipedia and many similar projects would be covered by the "small images" case? * I believe video games/simulations should be given similar treatment as fictional movie productions by permitting attribution in the credits as an alternative to the current options. Not allowing this seems to contradict the larger "in a location where customarily attribution would be expected" principle, as rolling credits are customary for many gaming genres. (I'm mostly thinking of traditional PC or console games here, not so much of mobile apps.) * What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license information part of the download process, or is it still required that attribution is visible on-screen during use? Tobias _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
