10 ms·

"It’s also missing the necessary credit to OpenStreetMap’s contributors; we look forward to working with Apple to get that on there."

by sambeau 15y ago

sdoering 15y ago
Why is that, that if Apple ignores credit/copyright (on a massive scale), that everybody loves their move. But if anybody would rip of an Apple product, the descendants of mighty Steve would come raining down with swords, axes and lawyers. Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?" The money, they do not have to pay Google anymore for the use of maps, while not crediting all these people, who supported OSM with their time and data-collecting.
- ticks 15y ago
  Better to approach these things positively, than assume the worst case and risk creating resentment.
  - cbs 15y ago
    It's idealistic naivete to assume the best of everyone. But you're right, pretending to does make it more comfortable to operate in the world.
    - fennecfoxen 15y ago
      It can also make it expedient and more effective to operate in the real world. You can always say "we tried to approach them and work with them nicely" when you start making noise and going nuclear after they don't respond.
      - adriand 15y ago
        Exactly, it's a very pragmatic move. After all, who has more lawyers? I think that people need to ask the question, "What do I hope to get out of this particular thing I'm about to do or say?" more often, as opposed to, "What am I justified in doing or saying?"
  - lotu 15y ago
    It is also unrealistic to assume the worst. It is more likely that attribution slipped though the cracks then it is that the Apple executives made a conscious decision to not include attribution in violation of the license.
- LaGrange 15y ago
  I think the thing you might be witnessing here is what earthlings call "sarcasm," or maybe "a thinly veiled threat". I'm not entirely sure which one.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    The whole article is sarcasm laid on with a trowel by people who would probably be willing to chase all the media exposure and legal avenues available to them if Apple doesn't play nice from here on in. I would love to be a fly-on-the wall at the Apple meeting where they are forced to discuss this.
    - patrickod 15y ago
      It doesn't matter that Apple are a big company: they're still subject to the same rules as anyone else. This is by far the best way to have this issue resolved. Talking to people usually works a lot better than spamming them with legal documents.
- ot 15y ago
  > Why is that, that if Apple ignores credit/copyright (on a massive scale), that everybody loves their move. It actually sounds very passive-aggressive to me.
  - sdoering 15y ago
    It is a mix of sarcasm and being feed up with big cooperations, screwing people who dedicate their own time, contributing to projects like OSM. So it might sound passive/aggressive. But wouldn't Apple be active/aggressive, if I would use their IP? Wouldn't they srew me for all I#m worth in court? I really don't know, but I wouldn't want to find out...
    - chc 15y ago
      What is your point? All I'm getting here is "Apple has an inhouse legal team."
- sdoering 15y ago
  Well I was just wondering, how many voices are raised in defending a coop, that is known for its love of details, but forgets to mention these tiny little humans, that gathered the data in the first place. </sarcasm> It seems to me, that the Apple-Folks in Cupertino knew exactly, what they were doing. Who would sue Apple in a case like this anyway? Being from Germany, I have no idea, what the US-System would look like, but I believe, that suing Apple would mean, that every one of the contributors to OSM would have to sue on his/her own. And who would do that? Apple would calculate this. And even, if some people would walk this way, it might still be cheaper, than paying Google. Just my two cents.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    It seems to be driven by the sort of cost benefit analysis that one uses in logistics and elsewhere in business. With an army of IP lawyers at their disposal, a multi-billion dollar war chest, and an opponent running on a shoe-string, they can probably force OSM to go all-in if it comes to a lawsuit. The cynical part of me sees this as great publicity for iPhoto using the P.T. Barnum principle: "I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right! " http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:P._T._Barnum http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:P._T._Barnum
- orblivion 15y ago
  > Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?" To this very particular point I want to say, I think that large companies switching over to open technologies (edit: because of a profit motive) is a good thing. There needs to be a critical mass of people who value the openness per se in order for the sea change to happen, but ultimately it has to be because we make it more profitable to do so. I have zero expectations that a bunch of CEOs are going to start caring about any cause. If they switch over, it means we're succeeding in making it profitable, and I take that as a good sign.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
cicloid 15y ago
Could the credits be embedded in the copyright for the software/eula/about in the App? The GIStiquette, seems to imply that there is almost always some copyright in the footer of the map. Could this copyright be embedded in the documentation (à la MIT) and still comply?
- Angostura 15y ago
  I wondered that too. I don't have the app, but I would bet that Settings > General > About > Legal Notices would be the place to look?
  - ugh 15y ago
    I didn’t find anything. There is just the license agreement in that place which doesn’t seem to make any reference to OSM.
    - Someone 15y ago
      Did you look where (s)he indicated or at the right place? Settings-General-About lists (zillions) of licenses for projects used in iOS itself. If I understand this correctly, this is about the new iPhoto app. The Numbers and Pages apps have an 'Acknowledgements' page in the Settings app. Is that where you looked?
      - ugh 15y ago
        Yep, that’s where I looked.
- olt 15y ago
  Well, the license (CC-By-SA) requires that "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner;". So it doesn't need to be in the footer of the map, when there is no footer at all ("at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors"), but I think the EULA/about not reasonable. But other people might disagree. There are even people that think the whole license is invalid and that it can be used as Public Domain, because the license is for creative work and not meant to be used for databases. This is the major reason OSM is changing to a different license right now (ODbL). Edit: See here http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Un...
ElliotH 15y ago
While I think it's quite messed up that a company as rich as Apple can't abide putting credits for people who have put some really good work in (I've even made small updates to OSM in my time) I do think that this is a very classy move by the OSM people, no ranting blog post or 'Apple stole our stuff', welcoming people presents a much better image of the project.
- afterburner 15y ago
  Given the behaviour of Steve Jobs over the years, that attitude is probably embedded in the culture.
  - fennecfoxen 15y ago
    If Steve Jobs were still alive, he'd probably be pledging to deplete every last dollar of Apple's billions to run this stolen product into the ground. Who does OpenStreetMap think they are, anyway? ;)
    - fennecfoxen 15y ago
      After making this comment I've come back to my 'comments' page from time to time and watched its karma value gyrate between positive and negative. Do the down-mods represent people operating in good faith thinking I'm being mean-spirited, rude, and damaging the conversation? Or are they Apple fanboys upset by a little uncomfortable teasing at their expense? I can only speculate. :P
      - Arelius 15y ago
        Personally, I just don't know what to make of your original comment, serious, or sarcastic, the clarity of what you are trying to get across just seems quite low.
        intended 15y ago
        Its obviously (to me) sarcastic. He is probably getting downvoted by people who 1) don't see it as sarcastic 2) Think it detracts from the conversation and encourages behavior of a similar sort.
ecopoesis 15y ago
Does Apple legally have to give credit? I thought facts couldn't be copyrighted (from the MLB vs fantasy baseball case - http://www.patentarcade.com/2007/11/case-cbc-v-major-league-baseball.html http://www.patentarcade.com/2007/11/case-cbc-v-major-league-...) and wouldn't map data qualify as facts?
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  IANAL but from what I understand "facts" can't be copyrighted, but a collection of facts can be. eg. A business' address/phone number can't be copyrighted on its own, but a specific collection of them into a Yellow Pages can be.
  - ecopoesis 15y ago
    I wonder if that means Apple could take the individual facts from OSM, add a few in from their other sources, reorder the facts (or just build their own tiles from them since that's all they're presenting) and be okay legally?
    - Steko 15y ago
      Don't overthink it, they just forgot the attribution line. It doesn't cost them anything to add it, they just didn't put it in. It's not a big deal despite the 500 articles that have been written about it.
  - rcfox 15y ago
    This isn't true in Canada. http://www.lmlaw.ca/copyright_raw_data.pdf http://www.lmlaw.ca/copyright_raw_data.pdf "...the selection or arrangement of data only results in a protected compilation if the end result qualifies as an original intellectual creation." (This actually saved me in university when the school wanted to charge me with copyright violation after I scraped their job database to make it easier to work with.)
    - veyron 15y ago

"It’s also missing the necessary credit to OpenStreetMap’s contributors; we look forward to working with Apple to get that on there."

by sambeau 15y ago

"It’s also missing the necessary credit to OpenStreetMap’s contributors; we look forward to working with Apple to get that on there."

sdoering 15y ago

Why is that, that if Apple ignores credit/copyright (on a massive scale), that everybody loves their move. But if anybody would rip of an Apple product, the descendants of mighty Steve would come raining down with swords, axes and lawyers. Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?" The money, they do not have to pay Google anymore for the use of maps, while not crediting all these people, who supported OSM with their time and data-collecting.

ticks 15y ago
Better to approach these things positively, than assume the worst case and risk creating resentment.
- cbs 15y ago
  It's idealistic naivete to assume the best of everyone. But you're right, pretending to does make it more comfortable to operate in the world.
  - fennecfoxen 15y ago
    It can also make it expedient and more effective to operate in the real world. You can always say "we tried to approach them and work with them nicely" when you start making noise and going nuclear after they don't respond.
    - adriand 15y ago
      Exactly, it's a very pragmatic move. After all, who has more lawyers? I think that people need to ask the question, "What do I hope to get out of this particular thing I'm about to do or say?" more often, as opposed to, "What am I justified in doing or saying?"
- lotu 15y ago
  It is also unrealistic to assume the worst. It is more likely that attribution slipped though the cracks then it is that the Apple executives made a conscious decision to not include attribution in violation of the license.
LaGrange 15y ago
I think the thing you might be witnessing here is what earthlings call "sarcasm," or maybe "a thinly veiled threat". I'm not entirely sure which one.
- ktizo 15y ago
  The whole article is sarcasm laid on with a trowel by people who would probably be willing to chase all the media exposure and legal avenues available to them if Apple doesn't play nice from here on in. I would love to be a fly-on-the wall at the Apple meeting where they are forced to discuss this.
  - patrickod 15y ago
    It doesn't matter that Apple are a big company: they're still subject to the same rules as anyone else. This is by far the best way to have this issue resolved. Talking to people usually works a lot better than spamming them with legal documents.
ot 15y ago
> Why is that, that if Apple ignores credit/copyright (on a massive scale), that everybody loves their move. It actually sounds very passive-aggressive to me.
- sdoering 15y ago
  It is a mix of sarcasm and being feed up with big cooperations, screwing people who dedicate their own time, contributing to projects like OSM. So it might sound passive/aggressive. But wouldn't Apple be active/aggressive, if I would use their IP? Wouldn't they srew me for all I#m worth in court? I really don't know, but I wouldn't want to find out...
  - chc 15y ago
    What is your point? All I'm getting here is "Apple has an inhouse legal team."
sdoering 15y ago
Well I was just wondering, how many voices are raised in defending a coop, that is known for its love of details, but forgets to mention these tiny little humans, that gathered the data in the first place. </sarcasm> It seems to me, that the Apple-Folks in Cupertino knew exactly, what they were doing. Who would sue Apple in a case like this anyway? Being from Germany, I have no idea, what the US-System would look like, but I believe, that suing Apple would mean, that every one of the contributors to OSM would have to sue on his/her own. And who would do that? Apple would calculate this. And even, if some people would walk this way, it might still be cheaper, than paying Google. Just my two cents.
- brudgers 15y ago
  It seems to be driven by the sort of cost benefit analysis that one uses in logistics and elsewhere in business. With an army of IP lawyers at their disposal, a multi-billion dollar war chest, and an opponent running on a shoe-string, they can probably force OSM to go all-in if it comes to a lawsuit. The cynical part of me sees this as great publicity for iPhoto using the P.T. Barnum principle: "I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right! " http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:P._T._Barnum http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:P._T._Barnum
orblivion 15y ago
> Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?" To this very particular point I want to say, I think that large companies switching over to open technologies (edit: because of a profit motive) is a good thing. There needs to be a critical mass of people who value the openness per se in order for the sea change to happen, but ultimately it has to be because we make it more profitable to do so. I have zero expectations that a bunch of CEOs are going to start caring about any cause. If they switch over, it means we're succeeding in making it profitable, and I take that as a good sign.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

cicloid 15y ago

Could the credits be embedded in the copyright for the software/eula/about in the App? The GIStiquette, seems to imply that there is almost always some copyright in the footer of the map. Could this copyright be embedded in the documentation (à la MIT) and still comply?

Angostura 15y ago
I wondered that too. I don't have the app, but I would bet that Settings > General > About > Legal Notices would be the place to look?
- ugh 15y ago
  I didn’t find anything. There is just the license agreement in that place which doesn’t seem to make any reference to OSM.
  - Someone 15y ago
    Did you look where (s)he indicated or at the right place? Settings-General-About lists (zillions) of licenses for projects used in iOS itself. If I understand this correctly, this is about the new iPhoto app. The Numbers and Pages apps have an 'Acknowledgements' page in the Settings app. Is that where you looked?
    - ugh 15y ago
      Yep, that’s where I looked.
olt 15y ago
Well, the license (CC-By-SA) requires that "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner;". So it doesn't need to be in the footer of the map, when there is no footer at all ("at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors"), but I think the EULA/about not reasonable. But other people might disagree. There are even people that think the whole license is invalid and that it can be used as Public Domain, because the license is for creative work and not meant to be used for databases. This is the major reason OSM is changing to a different license right now (ODbL). Edit: See here http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Un...

ElliotH 15y ago

While I think it's quite messed up that a company as rich as Apple can't abide putting credits for people who have put some really good work in (I've even made small updates to OSM in my time) I do think that this is a very classy move by the OSM people, no ranting blog post or 'Apple stole our stuff', welcoming people presents a much better image of the project.

afterburner 15y ago
Given the behaviour of Steve Jobs over the years, that attitude is probably embedded in the culture.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  If Steve Jobs were still alive, he'd probably be pledging to deplete every last dollar of Apple's billions to run this stolen product into the ground. Who does OpenStreetMap think they are, anyway? ;)
  - fennecfoxen 15y ago
    After making this comment I've come back to my 'comments' page from time to time and watched its karma value gyrate between positive and negative. Do the down-mods represent people operating in good faith thinking I'm being mean-spirited, rude, and damaging the conversation? Or are they Apple fanboys upset by a little uncomfortable teasing at their expense? I can only speculate. :P
    - Arelius 15y ago
      Personally, I just don't know what to make of your original comment, serious, or sarcastic, the clarity of what you are trying to get across just seems quite low.
      - intended 15y ago
        Its obviously (to me) sarcastic. He is probably getting downvoted by people who 1) don't see it as sarcastic 2) Think it detracts from the conversation and encourages behavior of a similar sort.

ecopoesis 15y ago

Does Apple legally have to give credit? I thought facts couldn't be copyrighted (from the MLB vs fantasy baseball case - http://www.patentarcade.com/2007/11/case-cbc-v-major-league-baseball.html http://www.patentarcade.com/2007/11/case-cbc-v-major-league-...) and wouldn't map data qualify as facts?

georgemcbay 15y ago
IANAL but from what I understand "facts" can't be copyrighted, but a collection of facts can be. eg. A business' address/phone number can't be copyrighted on its own, but a specific collection of them into a Yellow Pages can be.
- ecopoesis 15y ago
  I wonder if that means Apple could take the individual facts from OSM, add a few in from their other sources, reorder the facts (or just build their own tiles from them since that's all they're presenting) and be okay legally?
  - Steko 15y ago
    Don't overthink it, they just forgot the attribution line. It doesn't cost them anything to add it, they just didn't put it in. It's not a big deal despite the 500 articles that have been written about it.
- rcfox 15y ago
  This isn't true in Canada. http://www.lmlaw.ca/copyright_raw_data.pdf http://www.lmlaw.ca/copyright_raw_data.pdf "...the selection or arrangement of data only results in a protected compilation if the end result qualifies as an original intellectual creation." (This actually saved me in university when the school wanted to charge me with copyright violation after I scraped their job database to make it easier to work with.)
  - veyron 15y ago