Interpretation of wording "to the extent possible" in the attribution guidelines

In the section on the merchandise in the Attribution Guidelines, the phrase “to the extent possible” is used.

“Physical merchandise with an aesthetic component using OpenStreetMap data must provide attribution on any packaging, at the point of sale, and, to the extent possible, somewhere on the item itself.”

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Artwork,_household_goods,_and_clothing

Certain community members are debating what levels of request this wording “to the extent possible” would be.
Does anyone know if there was any discussion on the establishment of the guidelines? Or is there a best practice?

  • Member A: Attribution on the product itself is a ‘Better to have’ clause. It is necessary to state that OpenStreetMap data is used in packaging, sales websites, tags, etc., but attribution to the product itself is not necessarily mandatory.
  • Member B: Attribution on the product itself is mandatory and should almost always be implemented, except in special cases such as when the product itself is too tiny.

The interpretation of the context of the English text differs between the two of the members. That could be very simple for a native English speaker to understand, but we would be happy to hear your opinion.

Story behind :
A company sells smartphone cases printed with OpenStreetMap data.
There is a notation on the product packaging and website of the case stating that it uses OpenStreetMap data, but there is no notation on the case itself.

Members are discussing whether the operators should be requested to provide a notation on the case itself.

1 post - 1 participant

Read full topic


Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/interpretation-of-wording-to-the-extent-possible-in-the-attribution-guidelines/2373