> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does > not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the > copyright > page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under ODbL for a > map that has multiple data sources, then OSM would be violating others' ODbL > licenses.
IANAL, but when contacting government agencies in Brazil requesting permission to use their data, I always ask if the agency is okay with attribution through the wiki page that the attribution text links to and they all agree with it, so it's not a violation of the terms of the license? > The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by a > company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with but *is > not hosted* by an > entity. I agree that if someone were to use OSM tiles hosted by OSM, then > attribution should be visible in the corner at all times. This hostility against FLOSS bugs me. Companies are hostile towards something that is free and libre, with no restriction of use, the only thing we ask for is attribution so people can be informed about where the data you're using originated from. And it's not exclusive to OSM, not crediting FLOSS on purpose because it's "open" is a trend in tech companies, as mentioned a few replies ago by some user. And what we've seen here is a clear example of this trend: Mapbox exploiting OSM for its data without proper attribution (or hiding it), and instead misdirecting users to think Mapbox created both the data and tile service. As mentioned by Martin: > actually you even have to put a mapbox logo on the map if you show your own > data, hosted by mapbox: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/how-mapbox-works/attribution/ > > Maps using Mapbox map designs or data supplied by Mapbox must display both > the Mapbox wordmark and text attribution. > > You must also display the Mapbox wordmark if your map uses a custom style or > custom data hosted by Mapbox. I wouldn't be surprised if I was required to add a visible attribution to Mapbox if I used its data and OSM tiles, for example. Or would it be okay to hide the attribution because I'm using data that "isn't hosted" by an entity? Or because OSM is FLOSS, a special treatment is required? I would like to propose a thought exercise. What is the most important part of the map, its tiles or its data? I like to think that a map is a visual representation of data, so a tile would be its visual representation. A map isn't a map without data, and you can't build a map tile without data. So, why is it that the visible attribution should be to its visual part, instead of its data? One idea I had (and is against my personal beliefs): add DRM to OSM data, so we can control access and usage by corporate entities that don't properly attribute OSM. It would be some sort of "reverse-DRM" (because DRM acts against users, this one would act against companies). Imagine clicking on a POI in your Mapbox hosted map and instead of showing its details, it would display "Attribution is required before you can read the details!", à la #AttributionIsNotOptional. I'm pretty sure companies would rush and say the lack of attribution was accidental. I'm not fond of DRM and I really hope we don't reach this extent of turning OSM less free because of corporate lobbying against crediting the crucial part of a map. As Joseph said: > The attribution goes on the map. > This is not a difficult requirement to meet. > The most recent version of the guidelines > drafted by the LWG is almost there, but has drawn community criticism > about being too generous especially w.r.t. initially hidden attribution. Is there anywhere I can share my two cents about the guidelines? -- Atenciosamente, Alexandre Oliveira. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
