On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:47:59AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© > > OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation > > (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be > > necessary to credit the contributors. > > When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it > required that particular attribution were: > > "©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I > take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that > the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©" > serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits > that are required by other maps". > > "OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously. > > "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project: > this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the > attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand: > "TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap > contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and, > implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for > OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my > mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more > contributors and make the map better. > > I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might > be helpful.
+1. I feel that "contributors" should stay in the credit. jiri _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
