On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely > missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that > it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their > data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then > why not believe they are looking into it? They will probably fix it after > they figure it out. DJI fixed it after investigating, and it took them a > while to investigate as well. > > By inspecting their code from the link i shared you get. src= > "https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png"; > <https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png> > unless they are using Mapbox without their attribution which i presume > would be unauthorized use of Mapbox....either that or are premium clients > (i did asked them that, they didn't reply obviously). None the less I gave > up on asking Mapbox to make sure their clients comply with our license and > their terms of service, as they ignore it. Which is a shame coming from a > OSMF corporate member. Anyway i have asked, several times, even public, > another OSMF corporate member to do the same, still displaying HERE logo on > our data. Probably they take HERE seriously (legal) and not OSMF or OSM > contributors. > > So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free. You should report it to Mapbox. > About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel (the > company that omitted the attribution and runs https://dronesafetymap.com/) > and are now using Mapbox instead as you can see here > https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox owns me a cup of tea for > another client, oh well i can refuse that cup of tea for adding the > attribution proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i think > they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of proudly showing it. It's not > about the data, it's what you do with it that matters and Mapbox does it > well, but hiding the source is dirty. > How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can see from the map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use more than one data source? > > "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? > Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others > in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources, > after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time. > > Discussing the reasonable definition is nonsense. Also comparing us to the > others in the industry is not reasonable as we do not accept money for > providing data or removing attribution. > That might be your opinion, but I think a court would disagree. Courts often look at norms in order to interpret a licence. > Why not 100 click attribution? well that wasn't, isn't and never will be > the spirit of open data. Unless OSMF is going against it's owns Objects of > the foundation articles: > > OBJECTS > > 3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below: > (1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free > geospatial data; and (2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and > share. > > The objects don't say anything about strict attribution requirements. In fact, requirements that are too strict will *discourage* the "distribution of free geospatial data" by making it too difficult to use. That's the opposite of "providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share." > A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources > after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to > https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is > also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable? > > Thanks for the suggestion, maybe we should fix it and give the example of > one click only, just to avoid unreasonable interpretations. Anyway it's > this kind of misleading interpretation of adding a simply “© OpenStreetMap > contributors” to the data they are using, like it was some kind of secret > (probably is for none OSMers and general public) that places OSMF projet at > risk as it clearly does not encourage anything. > Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since the beginning? > And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out long > after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, Creative > Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" attribution for > multiple sources this page: https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28 > Click on "Course Terms of Use" to see a list of attributions. > > well 4 c) says of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says: > > If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly > digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, *You > must keep intact all copyright notices* for the Work and give the > Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing > by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author > if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably > practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, * that Licensor > specifies to be associated with the Work* > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode > "You must keep intact" means don't delete them, not, "can't be a link". That last clause is "to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work." In other words, include a link if the Licensor wants you to include a link! No one has suggested that the attribution should be only (c) OpenStreetMap with no link back to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
![https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png"](https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png"){kind=link}
