Talk:Contributors

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discuss Contributors page here:

Purpose

The OpenStreetMap copyright attribution text is typically, "Map data ©OpenStreetMap and contributors" as required by our license. It seems logical that somebody seeking further information should be able to visit wiki.openstreetmap.org and search for contributors to find a list of contributors.

We also have an obligation to acknowledge some of the mass data contributors with their attribution text and disclaimer. This seem like a good place to do that. Please add your attribution and disclaimers when you begin an import.

User:Rw 15:48, 27 February 2009

Yes but this list isn't being kept up to date very well. There's a better list at Import/Catalogue -- Harry Wood 12:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Scale

As interest in OSM grows and more contributors elect to include themselves on the contributors page, this single page may fail to scale. This page and any sub pages should be considered equal. User:Rw 20:58, 17 August 2010

I think we may need to try to limit the amount of text appearing next to each entry, although I guess some of these are legally required bits of text. Farming content off onto other pages is the way to do it. In fact we should aim to have a separate wiki page about every import. Not subpages though. Just other pages. Nice simple short page names. Like "LINZ" for example. Tidy pages with consistent headings would be nice to of course. Every one of these import pages should describe the import, who carried it out, what software, what's the current status, what the license details/legal agreements are, and alongside that (or perhaps prominently near the top of a particular page) we can include the "contributor text". The block of required/requested text giving them credit for their contribution. That could then be duplicated on this "contributors" page... or not if we're starting to run out of space -- Harry Wood 13:36, 18 August 2010 (BST)

Australian government public information datasets

The LWG claims that permission to use these data sources has been granted. The only evidence is an email posted by User:firefishy to the talk-au mailing list [1]

It is disputed whether data.gov.au is able to grant rights beyond those granted to it by the Australian Government agencies that submit the data in the first place. Despite multiple requests, no further information has been forthcoming from User:firefishy to back up his claim that LWG has "explicit special permission". 80n 11:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not deal with terrorists. If anyone is interested, see full thread. KTHXBye -- Firefishy 12:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Further legal confirm see: [2] -- Firefishy 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Without any evidence that can be corroborated, the rights granted are NOT compatibled with the OSM Contributor Terms, which means that these sources should NOT be used for OSM. Please provide the evidence or withdraw the claim that you have "explicit special permission". A copy of an email from someone at data.gov.au clearly setting out the permissions that you have been granted would be the kind of thing that would help. 80n 18:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Evidence is recorded here, here, here and here and are legal statements made by the Licensing Working Group. 80n, isn't it about time you moved on? -- Firefishy 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what evidence is required. Just because you say so, or the LWG says so, doesn't make it true. You need to cite an office statement made by a representative of data.gov.au. You've clearly had some correspondence with someone in that organisation, all you need to do is publish verbatim the text of that message.
Your reluctance to do this suggests that either you have something to hide or that you think you don't need to. Let me be clear about why you do need to do this. You need to publish this information otherwise any contributor who is accused, rightly or wrongly, of copyright infringement by data.gov.au will be unable to defend themselves. 80n 21:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Should redactions notice be removed?

Seems like it's outdated at this point. Jeffmeyer 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)