The OpenStreetMap licence page states:
Facebook uses OpenStreetmap for all maps on their site, but they do not provide the above attribution anywhere that I can tell. They put an "i" information icon in the lower right corner of the map that, when clicked, exposes a link to the OpenStreetMap licence page. Nowhere on Facebook do they mention OpenStreetMap contributors. The link is simply labeled "© OpenStreetMap" Is this OK? Facebook has been a gold-level sponsor of OpenStreetMap. Does that confer special privileges for a foreshortened attribution, or is this a practice everyone may adopt? asked 07 Jan '20, 16:51  pjammer |
2 Answers:
Regarding the question of "is this ok", this site is not the right place to answer the question because there is no clear and objective answer - it depends on whether you mean "legally ok" or "morally ok", and if the former, which jurisdiction you re talking about, and so on. The matter regularly pops up on the "talk" and "osmf-talk" mailing lists (e.g. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html) and has also been much debated on Twitter in the last couple of days (e.g. use https://twitter.com/grischard/status/1214197202643509249 as a starting point then check up and down the thread). Regarding "does any amount of goodwill towards OSMF absolve you of license requirements", the answer is a resounding no, because the OSMF cannot make exceptions from the license even if it wanted to. answered 07 Jan '20, 18:21  Frederik Ramm ♦ |
To the best of my understanding, it is not acceptable. There is a current thread/topic or whatever they call it on Reddit regarding another big "gold-level" sponsor with a similar violation of terms. This is and probably will continue to be an issue and, barring the OSM Foundation taking people to court in lots of different countries, it seems it is up to us to nag each company when we detect a violation. answered 07 Jan '20, 17:58  n76 |
