Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is listing at Contributors page qualifying as waiver for CC BY 4.0?

[Andrew Harvey]

Some here would say that when the publisher indicates their interpretation
of the license then we can rely on that instead going with our
interpretation of the license, but I am not a lawyer.

If they can sign the LWG waiver it makes things a lot easier, but it's not
the only option.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Is
>
> "it is good enough for us to be named as the data owner here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Kartverket_.28Norwegian_Mapping_Authority.29
> "
>
> (see http://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/kart/2014-August/004831.html for the
> original text)
> sufficient to solve problems of CC BY 4.0?
>
> As I understand CC BY 4.0 requires waiver for DRM related reasons, and
> that it would not
> be sufficient.
>
> For context see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Import/Catalogue/Road_import_(Norway)
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] ACT CC BY waiver

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks for your thoughts Simon.

On Tue, 30 May 2017, at 06:00 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> Andrew, pls jog my memory, is the ACT data available on CC BY 4.0
  terms or are the terms based on a earlier version?

It's CC BY 4.0 -> http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au/terms.html

> The problem with point 2 is that, if taken seriously, the
  relevant terms impose rather far reaching restrictions on how
  derived works can be used, for example a map generated from such
  data cannot be distributed on a blu-ray disk, or shown on a DRM
  protected streaming service (for example Netflix)*. Now the terms
  in question are likely the most ignored language ever in open
  licensing and even in the discussions on the CC mailing list
  leading up to the 4.0 versions you can find statements like
  "everybody ignores it", but we are OSM, not your run-of-the-mill
  data aggregation project that couldn't care less and we have a
  certain duty to ensure our downstream users can actually OSM data
  on our advertised terms.

> So for now I would suggest not using any more ACT data and going
  back to them and asking if having those restrictions in place is
  really their intent, and what they intend to achieve with them. 

This is what they've said:

"I have discussed this with our legal section and we are not in a
position to waive the conditions of CC BY, as it goes against the ACT
Government Open Data Policy that supports free and open data.

My interpretation of those emails
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory]
are that we permitted OSM to use the data under the terms and conditions
of the CC BY licence, however you are now seeking to waive one aspect of
the CC BY licence to enable OSM to apply a technical protection measure,
and we are not prepared to waive that condition."

Feels a bit ironic to me that we can't use this data in OSM since using
it in OSM would go against their open data policy!

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] ACT CC BY waiver

[Andrew Harvey]

I contacted the ACT Government to see if they could complete the CC BY
waiver form as provided at
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/. We have
previous correspondence at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory
from which the local community I believe has started using ACT
Government data, but now we have a proper waiver form I wanted to make
sure everything was in order.
The ACT Government have come back that point (1) in the waiver regarding
attribution is okay but they can't agree to point (2) in the waiver. How
important is having the data provider agree to both of these points?
What does this mean for any data already imported into OSM from this
source? Will it need to be removed?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Andrew Harvey]

On 8 July 2016 at 23:47, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address
> a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if
> you take your proprietary dataset and  remove all POIs from the OSM
> dataset that exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally,
> ODbL licensed and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with
> some information leak via the OSM data). If you do the de-duplication
> the other way around you would be potentially be damaging the
> proprietary status of your data so you wouldn't try that to start with.
>
> You could now distribute the two datasets in a combined fashion and
> argue that each of them is an individual database and as a result the
> combined dataset is a Collective Database, both guidelines rule that out
> (again that does not imply that a judge applying the ODbL to such a case
> would come to the same conclusion).
>
> In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to prohibiting
> de-duplication (of any kind).

On 9 July 2016 at 00:10, Ilya Zverev  wrote:
> Thanks for raising the issue. We at maps.me tried to follow the license: 
> basically we are combining the OSM data without certain nodes (see the list 
> of ids at http://direct.mapswithme.com/direct/latest/skipped_nodes.lst ) and 
> a proprietary data set for hotels. Since we do not use any OSM information, 
> like names or coordinates, for these hotels, I assumed the result could be 
> considered a collective database.
>
> Now, the matching process does indeed compare coordinates of hotels in both 
> datasets, and filters out nodes in the OSM data. The list of nodes is 
> published, so anyone can reproduce the open part of the data from a planet 
> dump. Again, the proprietary data is in no way affected by the OSM data (it 
> is added in its entirety, not a single object is omitted or altered using OSM 
> data). So the last item in the guidelines ("all hotels not found in the 
> OpenStreetMap data layers") does not apply.
>
> If the LWG decides we are violating the license (and explains how, maybe 
> producing another guidelines), we will remove all OSM hotels from our data. 
> But for now I don't see how it's different from removing just some of the 
> hotels.

Thanks for the explanation from both of you, so in this specific case
it appears from what you've both said is that maps.me has taken a
"proprietary dataset and removed all POIs from the OSM dataset that
exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally, ODbL licensed
and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with some
information leak via the OSM data)."

I don't follow if this is permitted or not, either it is because "each
of them is an individual database and as a result the combined dataset
is a Collective Database" but then you say " both guidelines in this
use scenario boil down to prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind)."
Sorry I don't follow which one it is, that the de-duplication that
maps.me is doing is permitted under the license or isn't.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Andrew Harvey]

According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
the results must be shared under the ODBL.

From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining
OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.

https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
app. Hotel A appears in the app,
but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels
they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM.

This is the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447

There are other examples of this too like this hotel
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up
next to their supplemented data like this
https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png

Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license MAPS.ME
either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all
OSM hotels from their app?

[1] 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline#Examples_of_where_you_DO_need_to_share_your_non-OpenStreetMap_data
[2] version 6.2.2-Google Data version: 160621

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Andrew Harvey]

Sorry my mistake. Thanks for picking up on that.
On 24/12/2015 9:01 pm, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> wrote:

> Am 23.12.2015 um 23:58 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> > I'm really keen on seeing this compatibility question resolved too. CC
> > BY is becoming the standard license for government geospatial data in
> > Australia, and it would be much simpler to interchange data both ways
> There might be a misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an
> option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The
> only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input
> licences.
>
> Simon
>
> > if it were compatible with the ODbL.
> >
> > On 15 July 2015 at 00:22, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote:
> >> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've
> >> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either with
> >> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next
> license
> >> revision). That's on hold pending their availability at summer's end;
> stay
> >> tuned.
> >>
> >>> To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and
> >>> clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0 is
> >>> currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that.
> >>>
> >>> CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly  incompatible, thanks to the
> >>> attribution requirements that can't be met.
> >>>
> >>> CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> legal-talk mailing list
> >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >>
> > ___
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee  wrote:
> Point 1 is simple agreement.
>
> Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
> possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely
> as any).
>
> Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable
> proceeding under the assumption that "it can be clearly identified as LPI
> data" will be a rare occurrence. It is already the case, after all, that OSM
> contains data that cannot be legally used in certain places and/or
> configurations. One example is reverse engineering data from OSM that
> violates a national post's exclusive franchise could be a problem for a user
> -- clearly it isn't OSM's place to worry about this, but the dynamic is
> real. Similarly, Japan's MLIT (whose data has already been imported) carries
> not only attribution requirements but, if memory services, prohibitions on
> misrepresenting the data's source. Having the data pass into and out of OSM
> would not free users from this obligation; in practice it's not a problem.

That's thoughts also. Good to know about those other examples too!

> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be -- and has been --
> cleared.

Great. People have started using this data and imagery now in OSM.

This permission from LPI is going to help in talks with other agencies
here who license CC-BY.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

I got a response:

>>- OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products 
>>into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this 
>>email chain.
>Agree

>>- You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be 
>>incorporated is presently licensed under the terms of the Open Database 
>>License (ODbL) version 1.0; and that it is possible for the project to update 
>>or change this license (though I should note that this has only happened once 
>>in the project's ten year history).
>Agree, as long as the changes do not go against the CC by licence and our 
>acknowledgment requirements.

>>- You understand that OSM data is reused by various third parties under the 
>>terms of the ODbL ("downstream use") and in ways that make attribution of all 
>>original data sources impossible; and you therefore agree that downstream use 
>>of OSM data including or derived from NSW data is not subject to the 
>>"reasonable" attribution requirements imposed by the NSW data's CC-BY license.
>Agree, unless it can be clearly identified as LPI Data. For example majority 
>of the derivative work it made up of NSW data.

My thoughts are, they're not going to throw out their CC BY license
conditions, simply provide us with the extra clarifications around
some of the terms within it.

So if someone for instance imported all LPI data into OSM and then
filtered the planet extract or API to only return LPI data, they would
need to provide LPI attribution as per their request and not just
attribute this as OSM.


On 13 December 2015 at 21:57, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
>> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
>> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
>> licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
>> completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
>> and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
>> permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
>> be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
>> might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.
>
> It would be easier, but you and Tom are correct that this would be
> hard. Hard because CC BY is the standard license which almost all are
> using here and even more so because in their view there is nothing
> wrong with CC BY.
>
>> As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
>> think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
>> use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
>> attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
>> link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
>> by their data?
>
> My interpretation of their view is yes that are aware that other
> people could use OSM data and they may only get indirect attribution
> and they are happy with this and believe this is okay as per the CC
> license text.
>
> However, not in the latter case if for instance all their data were to
> be imported into OSM and then someone pulled only their data from OSM,
> in such a case they believe end users would need to attribute them. I
> suppose that could be of a concern, so I'll reply back with Tom's
> suggested wording for clarification.
>
> That said, the data they have released isn't raw data, it's only
> imagery + raster basemaps, not sure if that makes a difference.
>
>> It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
>> an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be used in
>> OSM, rather than just that they're happy for the attribution that OSM
>> provides for its own direct use.
>
> I'm not a fan of that, because explicit permission for OSM to use such
> data wouldn't extend to any other downstream organisations using such
> data through OSM?
>
> On 13 December 2015 at 02:46, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote:
>> I agree that there's no harm in sending another email asking for assent to
>> more specific terms. I've drafted some suggested language, to make this
>> easy.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Having recently spoken to a number of parties about Australia's open data
>> push (specifically address data), including folks from the PM's office and
>> the NSW government, I doubt the odds of a dual-licensing request meeting
>> with success are very high. The national government is centra

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
> licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
> completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
> and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
> permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
> be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
> might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.

It would be easier, but you and Tom are correct that this would be
hard. Hard because CC BY is the standard license which almost all are
using here and even more so because in their view there is nothing
wrong with CC BY.

> As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
> think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
> use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
> attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
> link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
> by their data?

My interpretation of their view is yes that are aware that other
people could use OSM data and they may only get indirect attribution
and they are happy with this and believe this is okay as per the CC
license text.

However, not in the latter case if for instance all their data were to
be imported into OSM and then someone pulled only their data from OSM,
in such a case they believe end users would need to attribute them. I
suppose that could be of a concern, so I'll reply back with Tom's
suggested wording for clarification.

That said, the data they have released isn't raw data, it's only
imagery + raster basemaps, not sure if that makes a difference.

> It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
> an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be used in
> OSM, rather than just that they're happy for the attribution that OSM
> provides for its own direct use.

I'm not a fan of that, because explicit permission for OSM to use such
data wouldn't extend to any other downstream organisations using such
data through OSM?

On 13 December 2015 at 02:46, Tom Lee  wrote:
> I agree that there's no harm in sending another email asking for assent to
> more specific terms. I've drafted some suggested language, to make this
> easy.

Thanks.

> Having recently spoken to a number of parties about Australia's open data
> push (specifically address data), including folks from the PM's office and
> the NSW government, I doubt the odds of a dual-licensing request meeting
> with success are very high. The national government is centralizing and
> standardizing its open data program, and it's clear that their default
> license will be CC-BY (or possibly a compatible national variant a la
> license ouverte).

Exactly my thoughts.

> Andrew has already found someone who feels comfortable offering
> clarifications and assurances regarding use and license interpretation;
> asking for relicensing is likely to require that she involve other parties,
> which could easily derail things. Still, I defer to his judgment about the
> best course.
>
> Suggested language follows:
>
> Thanks very much for your help with this matter. I think we understand one
> another, but for the sake of clarity, can you agree to the following three
> points?
>
> - OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products
> into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this
> email chain
>
> - You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be
> incorporated is presently licensed under the terms of the Open Database
> License (ODbL) version 1.0; and that it is possible for the project to
> update or change this license (though I should note that this has only
> happened once in the project's ten year history)
>
> - You understand that OSM data is reused by various third parties under the
> terms of the ODbL ("downstream use") and in ways that make attribution of
> all original data sources impossible; and you therefore agree that
> downstream use of OSM data including or derived from NSW data is not subject
> to the "reasonable" attribution requirements imposed by the NSW data's CC-BY
> license

I will reply back with that.

> Sorry to make this so formal, but I'm sure you can imagine the consequences
> for OpenStreetMap if we fail to make sure our data sources are legally
> compatible.

Agreed.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee  wrote:
> Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:
>
> - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
> impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
> requirements in a geo context
> - the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream
> attribution requirements to be unreasonable in many cases, and don't believe
> the obligation should apply in those cases
> - the rightsholder has made it clear what attribution they wish to receive,
> and it's obviously within OSM's power to comply with those wishes
>
> I think this looks like a pretty good chance to incorporate some valuable
> open data.

Thanks for your thoughts. I came to those exact same conclusions also,
so it's reassuring that you have too. I've added the base layers as
defaults for the editors and from the talk-au thread, people are using
this data now.

Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I
understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution
(where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any
incorporated or derived datasets) is fine within the bounds of the CC
BY 3.0 AU license already. They mentioned that the CC license has a
concept of attribution reasonable or appropriate for the medium which
covered this use case. They also mentioned that when their CC BY 3.0
AU data is incorporated into a new work (which is more than just a
trivial transformation) then there is no need for downstream
attribution within the license.

In a way they are merely letting us know of their interpretation of
the license that it's terms already meet our requirements.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

[Andrew Harvey]

Yes I'm actually doing it. On beyondtracks.com I take OSM geometries and
adapted them into walking routes. Occasionally I've actually modified these
geometries for better accuracy against the government's CC BY imagery. I
thought this would be okay so long as I comply with both licenses via
attribution and dual licensing of my new work.

If it's okay, then this opens up a problem that my changes can't be
incorporated into OSM which defeats the whole point of the copyleft OSM
licence?
On 23/11/2015 9:33 pm, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> wrote:

>
>
> Am 23.11.2015 um 03:06 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> > I consume OSM data, adapt it for my needs by adjusting OSM geometries
> > to match CC-BY licensed aerial imagery, and then publish the result
> > publicly.
> >
> >
> Are you -actually- doing this or would like to it or is this a thought
> experiment?
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

[Andrew Harvey]

On 23 November 2015 at 13:27, Paul Norman  wrote:
> CC BY 3.0 doesn't allow you to do this, as it requires you to impose
> conditions not present in the ODbL.

When I publish my new work, I add all the required attributions and
statements required by the CC-BY 3.0 license (in clause 4B). Are these
the conditions which you refer to? I thought from my CC compliance
side they don't need to be present in the ODbL since I assert them in
addition to the ODbL license as required from the OSM side?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

[Andrew Harvey]

I consume OSM data, adapt it for my needs by adjusting OSM geometries
to match CC-BY licensed aerial imagery, and then publish the result
publicly.

To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results
contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap
Contributors under the Open Database License
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright;.

To comply with the CC-BY license, I also add that "In part derived
from [name of work], CC BY 3.0 licensed, [link to work]".

Is this okay?

However "CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly  incompatible, thanks to
the attribution requirements that can't be met."[1] and "It is ... not
clear if the CC 4.0 licenses are compatible ... with the ODbL"[2].

With this in mind my modified data is of no use to OSM since my
improvements can't be reincorporated with OSM?

Is this correct or is there a problem with my logic?

Many thanks.

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-July/008161.html
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-July/008157.html

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

[Andrew Harvey]

On 23 November 2015 at 13:06, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results
> contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap
> Contributors under the Open Database License
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright;.

...and I offer my adapted work under the ODbL.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

[Andrew Harvey]

> Thanks, Jukka.  I suspect that "permission" isn't actually valid, as it
> seems to extend from data.gov.au (Federal government) but most of the
> datasets there are state or territory (eg, the VicMap Rivers dataset), and
> are published on the relevant state/territory data portals (data.vic.gov.au,
> data.act.gov.au) etc.

This is the original statement
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
whereby data@finance.gov.au gave OSM permission to redistribute
all CC BY data available through data.gov.au (regardless of original
publishing agency) under "a free and open license, including the Open
Database License" so long as OSM provides the attribution on it's
Contributors page.

I do question that validity, but if you take it as true then I believe
this means that all you need is this state data to be re-published at
data.gov.au for OSM to republish it under a it's ODbL license
relieving downstream users of any requirements to attribute the
government agency (only OSM), even if the original state agency
doesn't agree with this relicensing.

I would still rather we find some way that each government agency can
release their data such that we can use it in OSM without needing
explicit permission. I think it's a bit unfair to ask people to
release their data as CC0 when OSM won't, so if the attribution issue
can be fixed in a future CC BY version I think that would be the best
way forward.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Andrew Harvey]

On 31 August 2015 at 12:05, Andrew Turner ajtur...@highearthorbit.com wrote:
 So a simpler route here would be to suggest upgrading to use CC-By 4.0?

 Or is Paul stating there is no known version of Creative Commons that is 
 acceptable to OSM except the completely unencumbered CC0?

See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-July/008163.html

CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What extra permissions are needed to include CC-BY data in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

Just found http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission
it has hints about what extra permissions we require.

On 5 May 2015 at 19:27, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm bringing up a conversation from talk-au pertaining to what
 additional permissions we need from content owners in order to include
 or use as a source to derive further information from their CC-BY
 licensed data in OSM.

 Any advice is very much appreciated.

 On 16 April 2015 at 15:26, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
 On 4/15/2015 6:01 AM, Ross wrote:
 The issue is not with the licence.  The current terms and conditions 
 require permission to add data not owned by the contributor.

 This is incorrect. An appropriate license is sufficient. Some obviously 
 appropriate licenses are CC0, PDDL, ODC-BY and the ODbL itself.

 The issue is that CC BY (and BY-SA) 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 require a form of 
 attribution that is not practical for most map uses, so we need permission. 
 This would have been true even without the license change, as we were never 
 meeting the requirements of those versions of CC BY.

 We have permission for many Australian sources, and I believe for all CC BY 
 Australian sources that were in use at the time of the license change.

 My question was does CC-BY 4.0 have the same issue? Could CC-BY 4.0
 data be included in OSM.

 Secondly, what specific permission do we need to include CC-BY 3.0 or
 4.0 data in OSM? Do we essentially need the data supplier to agree to
 CC0 plus attribution in some specific form requested by OSMF? Is there
 a sample legal agreement or text for this?

 The release of government spatial data in Australia is continuing to
 expand to more and more agencies who are releasing under CC-BY, and it
 would be great if we had an OSMF approved license agreement or such we
 can present to these agencies so that hopefully these CC-BY datasets
 can be potentially used in some form in OSM.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] What extra permissions are needed to include CC-BY data in OSM

[Andrew Harvey]

I'm bringing up a conversation from talk-au pertaining to what
additional permissions we need from content owners in order to include
or use as a source to derive further information from their CC-BY
licensed data in OSM.

Any advice is very much appreciated.

On 16 April 2015 at 15:26, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
 On 4/15/2015 6:01 AM, Ross wrote:
 The issue is not with the licence.  The current terms and conditions require 
 permission to add data not owned by the contributor.

 This is incorrect. An appropriate license is sufficient. Some obviously 
 appropriate licenses are CC0, PDDL, ODC-BY and the ODbL itself.

 The issue is that CC BY (and BY-SA) 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 require a form of 
 attribution that is not practical for most map uses, so we need permission. 
 This would have been true even without the license change, as we were never 
 meeting the requirements of those versions of CC BY.

 We have permission for many Australian sources, and I believe for all CC BY 
 Australian sources that were in use at the time of the license change.

My question was does CC-BY 4.0 have the same issue? Could CC-BY 4.0
data be included in OSM.

Secondly, what specific permission do we need to include CC-BY 3.0 or
4.0 data in OSM? Do we essentially need the data supplier to agree to
CC0 plus attribution in some specific form requested by OSMF? Is there
a sample legal agreement or text for this?

The release of government spatial data in Australia is continuing to
expand to more and more agencies who are releasing under CC-BY, and it
would be great if we had an OSMF approved license agreement or such we
can present to these agencies so that hopefully these CC-BY datasets
can be potentially used in some form in OSM.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
 Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7958977

where attribution=Based on Mosman Council data. It was CC-BY-SA.


...I also am not confident my nearmap derived data can be released
under the ODBL because I find the statement made regarding this
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-June/008098.html
unclear and self conflicting, but that's a can of worms I better not
open. Regardless the OSMF and OSM community are aware of this and can
and will make their own decision regarding this, so it doesn't matter
what I think.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
 Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28..
 pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported
 ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters
 import ODbL-incompatible data.  With version 1.2.4 requiring
 compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's
 CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and
 this leads to a lot of misunderstandings.  (This should be fixed if
 the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer
 it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be)

Yep and I used this logic (which is confirmed by
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html
even though I didn't know it at the time) when I agreed to the CTs as
I stated http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision
 to make that change to the CT.

 The issue has been discussed here

 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html

 and elsewhere on this list.

 We can only hope that most people misunderstand this whole thing and in
 their minds treat agreeing to CT and agreeing to ODbL the same. A strict
 reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build
 the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release
 the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are
 ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on
 how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when
 they released 1.2.4, right ;-)?

Spot on. Thanks for highlighting this issue.

There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get
mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content
CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to
the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out.

I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this
data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I
don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB
of non-ODBL content.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

[Andrew Harvey]

It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can
upload to OSM.

We as a community can't verify this.
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all
we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf
which we can't verify as authentic.

But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.

That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as
it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines

I would love to have these issues proved unfounded, but until then, I
don't use bing at all, and am hoping the areas of OSM I'm interested
in don't become too polluted by bing data.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 The official Bing blog:
 http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
 published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager

Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than
nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end
though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF.

 But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
 also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
 others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
 isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
 OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.


 The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
 license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
 The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
 condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create
a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work
is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that
you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any
copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at
this case as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks for posting this Kai. Those comments from Creative Commons look
promising.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change
 on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet.

 http://lwn.net/Articles/422493/

 It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of
 the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels,
 there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons
 (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light
 that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at
 least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM.

 I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't
 missrepresent anyone.

 - CC does not (no longer) think data should be PD and would be happy with
 copyleft on data. The statements of CC saying data should be PD were from
 science commons for scientific data only and was a misscommunication that it
 was perceived as general CC viewpoint

 - CC does care about data and either sees their licensing as potentially
 valid for data or intend to make it work for data

 - CC is (or will be) working on a new version 4 of their CC licenses, which
 will apparently make every effort to address the needs of the open data
 ecosystem

 What exactly this all means, if it is indeed a shift away from the position
 CC appears to have held previously, why it comes to light now and if it has
 any relevance to the license change process for OSM I have no idea. But
 perhaps we will find out more about this soon from CC as mlinksva mentioned
 he wanted to follow up on these points publicly.

 Their wiki page on version 4 ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4 )
 at least is still entirely empty. So it probably isn't anything around the
 corner or of any certainty yet.

 Kai
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LWN-article-on-license-change-and-Creative-Commons-tp5945925p5945925.html
 Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 12/21/10 11:51, Andrew Harvey wrote:

 I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis
 that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled
 with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing
 imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM
 community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as
 vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA
 license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so
 we can use this as a mapping source.

 I.e. you are not happy with applying your (rather skewed IMHO)
 interpretation of legal matters to your own work, but you would prefer to
 force it on everyone else in the project, stopping them from using Bing
 until the available documentation matches your personal interpretation, is
 that right?

Sorry I don't understand.

 Have you applied the same rigor to other data sources that were widely
 believed to be usable, e.g. Yahoo?

I think I've only used Yahoo once or twice. This was before I looked
into the legal foundations. Since this, I couldn't find a license from
Yahoo, so I determined that I should not use Yahoo as I'm not

An observation. It seems we have two camps. One like Yahoo and
Microsoft who allegedly say tracing from imagery they serve and
uploading it to OSM is not against their terms of service, and make no
mention of any copyright rights of such works. And another camp like
Nearmap, Landsat, etc. who don't mention anything in their terms of
service, but instead grant the imagery under a license that allows
derivative works to be released under some other CC-BY-SA compatible
license.

My only concern is that for the first case, even though its not
against their terms of service, we still may not have the permissions
from people who are able to grant us a copyright license to use such
data. I see these two things as independent of one another, and I
thought that we need both to be checked before we can use a service
for deriving information. Of course its a real mess because as this is
an international project, some countries may say that tracing does not
create a derivative work so the tracer can use any license (or none)
that they wish, others may say that tracing does create a derivative
work so you need a license from the copyright holder to distribute any
traced data.

I don't know, this is just how I'm seeing it from all the evidence I've seen.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 David ( some others),

 David Groom wrote:

 I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery
 to create derived works, all the only answer is we have it.  As I've said
 before if its there please show us where it is.

 Just out of interest; why are we having this conversation? Is it just to
 determine who is right and who is wrong and who was right in the first place
 and who gets extra points for being super nitpicking (hello 80n, have you
 never written a final document and later made a v2 of it?) and who gets to
 sit on the golden seat in lawyer heaven?

 Do you *want* to use Bing imagery but feel you cannot?

 Or do you not want to use Bing imagery and are looking for a reason?

 I mean, every now and then I enjoy being a tongue-in-cheek smartass myself,
 but somehow I have the impression that not only has this discussion left the
 ground a while ago, no, meanwhile someone has cut the tether as well.

 By all means, if that's what floats your boat, continue - but you'll excuse
 if meanwhile I'm a little bit pragmatic and trace some aerial imagery. I'm
 sure it is wrong somehow, but I like the outcome.

I am having this conversation because I contribute to OSM on the basis
that the database will be licensed CC BY-SA and will not be filled
with data which conflicts with that license. If tracings from Bing
imagery cannot be distributed under this license, then the OSM
community should be made aware of this, so we can treat such edits as
vandalism. If tracings from Bing can be distributed under a CC BY-SA
license then again the OSM community should be made aware of this so
we can use this as a mapping source.

If the folks at Microsoft really do have the permissions to and grant
us the permissions to license derived works as we wish, (even under
the condition that they are uploaded to osm.org), they would come on
this list and tell us directly whether we have the permission or not.

As I mentioned before if this is not sorted out, conflicts will arise
where two contributors are both working on the same feature, one
believes we have the legal right and community norm to use Bing
imagery to trace that feature, and another will think we don't have
the right and want to create the same feature from their GPS survey.
We cannot just divide and say trace if you want and don't if you don't
think its okay. We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have
this conflict.

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 20/12/10 10:00, David Groom wrote:

 Why are we having this conversation? Because every now and then someone
 makes a statement along the lines that we have a licence which allows
 us to use Bing Imagery for tracing, and as far as I can see that is not
 backed up by any evidence.

 It is backed up by the evidence provided.

 When anyone details their concerns about this, the only answers that are
 ever given is we have permission to do it,

 They are pointed to the relevant documents. And an explanation of the
 combined results of those documents is offered.

 Which indicate that we have permission to do it for the reasons that have
 previously been given.

Do we have any legal experts who have looked at this evidence? What is
their opinion?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 What? Oh, fuck. That's really fucking bad.

 So we have broken CTs, and absolutely no way to avoid them. Who the
 fuck came up with that fucking stupid policy? With the greatest
 respect for the LWG, who are acting in good faith, this strikes me as
 dumb. As soon as the first problems with the CTs 1.0 were realised, it
 should have been repealed, sent back for further analysis, then
 version 1.1 brought out. Leaving a broken 1.0 version in place, and
 giving no opt-out mechanism is terrible form.


Exactly. I've said this previously on this list. Until the CTs are
finalised and all users are forced to agree or be told that they are
no longer welcome, the CTs should not be mandatory for new users.

When I get the time, I'll start looking into the current CC BY-SA osm
forks and see if they have open development that I could help out
with.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

[Andrew Harvey]

I feel that it is not safe at this point. I have raised my concerns in
this thread 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005299.html

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Manuel Reimer
manuel.s...@nurfuerspam.de wrote:
 Hello,

 is it secure to use Bing? Any license risks? Could Microsoft, at some day,
 just force us to remove everything with source=Bing on it? Am I forced to
 have this source tag there? Should stuff, taken from Bing, be verified via
 GPS track at some time to get the data secure?

 One risk, which definetly exists, is that Microsoft rejects their offer at
 some time, so if there is no risk in using the data, I would start to use it
 to complete several things in my area (buildings, landuse, ) as long as
 the data is still available for OSM.

 Yours

 Manuel


 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
 Then you must have the same objection to tracing from Yahoo's imagery.
 Unlike Bing, there is no specific agreement between Yahoo and OSM.
 Yahoo only agreed that the act of tracing from the satellite imagery
 that they host and putting the traced data under any license (and not
 specifically CC-BY-SA 2.0) does not violate Yahoo Maps' terms of
 service, which contains similar language to Bing's terms of use. Yet
 here we are tracing from Yahoo for years already.

Yes, reading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo#Legalities it
sounds very shaky. If Yahoo takes the position that if we derive
vector-based map data from the aerial photos owned by Yahoo! they are
no longer copyright Yahoo!, so we can release them under any license
we want. is true, then I don't see any problems, I would however
think that as a community we should have some way of verifying that
this really is Yahoo's view.

The statement,

   Yahoo takes the position that if we derive vector-based map data
from the aerial photos owned by Yahoo! they are no longer copyright
Yahoo!, so we can release them under any license we want.

is different to,

   Yahoo only agreed that the act of tracing from the satellite
imagery that they host and putting the traced data under any license
(and not specifically CC-BY-SA 2.0) does not violate Yahoo Maps' terms
of service

The former in my view says that they grant permission for tracing and
subsequent data to be licensed at the discretion of the tracer. The
latter just says that its not against their terms of service, but
doesn't say if the copyright of the imagery subsists in derived
information like tracing, we release that copyright. In my point of
view, we should require both issues (terms of service, and copyright
of derived works) to be clarified by Yahoo before we do any tracing
from Yahoo. This is just my opinion though.

Either way, from an outsider just coming into this area, I find the
lack of verifiable evidence from Yahoo potentially problematic.

Anyway, back to Bing, even if you believe that the following statement
is legally solid enough to be interpreted as a license or grant by a
court (I do not), it doesn't say anything about derived works,
deriving information from the imagery or tracing. All it says is they
allow the imagery to be used as a backdrop in editors. Nothing about
deriving information Sure in that latest PDF they say  Any
updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the
Application (even if not published to third parties) must be
contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. But they never actually say
what is allowed.


“Microsoft is pleased to announce the royalty-free use of the Bing
Maps Imagery Editor API, allowing the Open Street Map community to use
Bing Maps imagery via the API as a backdrop to your OSM map editors.

Bing Maps imagery must be used in accordance with the API Terms
and Conditions [see PDF below] – although this is not legal binding
advice, and you are encouraged to read the TOU itself, in sum the TOU
says: you are only granted rights to use the aerial imagery, you must
use the imagery as presented in the API, you cannot modify or edit the
imagery, including the copyright and credit notices; you cannot create
permanent, offline copies of the imagery, all of your updates to OSM
arising out of the application must be shared with OSM, and the OSM
map editor must be free to end users.”

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 
 wrote:

 Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same
 topic.

 http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx

 Richard

 Some people have already decided that the license offered by Bing, and
 the intent demonstrated by their public statements, is enough to move
 forward.

 So here is something interesting.  And it combines several of the
 recent announcements relating to OpenStreetMap.

 Today, I put a bug in to Skobbler's OpenStreetBugs system,
 then fixed it using Potlatch 2 on the Open MapQuest site,
 and added some more details with the Bing Imagery(!) shown there.

 Open initiatives from both MapQuest and Bing, built upon the work of
 countless OSM contributors and F/LOSS tools, combined in one place to
 help me make an improvement in OpenStreetMap?  I think that's nice to
 see.


Am I the only one that sees a problem with the legal foundation of
tracing from Bing imagery? Take a look at how NearMap.com make their
imagery available for tracing. On their website along with the their
license of how their imagery can be used, they include a clause that
allows derivative information to be licensed under {such and such}
license.

If Microsoft have the authority to sublicense the Bing aerial imagery,
then what they should do is add a clause to their existing
license/terms of use that says something along the lines of, we
declare that anyone who derives information from the Bing imagery owns
the copyright (or whatever other rights are needed for one to be free
to user, modify... the information).

I am yet to see a license.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
is not a license, its just a quote from some guy named SteveC, which
doesn't actually say anything about derivative works and the copyright
of such works.

The only legal terms I could find were at
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html but I couldn't find
anything which would allow derived information to be CC BY-SA 2.0
licensed.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Andrew Harvey wrote:
 I am yet to see a license.

 http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use
 embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and
 therefore requires Flash Player. There is also a PDF download link. If you
 are unable to see the Scribd document then I've also uploaded it to
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing#Licence .

 Richard

Thanks Richard. I see that that PDF doesn't match
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html That is problematic
as the PDF is from a third party, and I wouldn't consider it legally
solid.

Even if http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html was updated
to the PDF, I couldn't find any sections which actually say that
derived information can be copyrighted by the tracer and released
under something CC BY-SA 2.0 compatible, or something to the same
effect.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Mike  Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
 HI Andrew,
 I am also worried about this, but dont want to be seen as a troll.
 mike

Neither do I. I just don't want a CC BY-SA database cluttered with
non-compatible data. I've looked through everything that has been
linked to, but still I cannot find the specific parts of Bing' s
actual license/terms of conditions that allow this.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:34 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
 Whereabouts is the prior written consent from Microsoft which would enable
 us to trace and thus create derivative works?

 David

 [1]  http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details

 Isn't http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details the prior
 written consent from Microsoft.

But that is opengeodata.org, not Microsoft, you would need a license
from Microsoft.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use

[Andrew Harvey]

Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document which
contains the license grant? Could some please point me to the section
which says derived information shall have no restriction on its use?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Sebastian Klein basti...@googlemail.com wrote:
 We have a ToU agreement specially designed for osm (Bing Maps Imagery
 Service Editor Application API's Terms of Use [1]) so do we even need to
 consider the general terms of use?

 They are both somewhat similar, though.

 [1] http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details

Is this available from Microsoft somewhere or a Microsoft web site?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 Which is exactly the point, unless ODBL data can be imported (or
 traced or ) it makes little difference to me what license they are
 using, it certainly doesn't prove that it is more useful in a court of
 law that cc-by-sa.

 As others have pointed out, it almost seems self defeating using a
 share a like license if improvements to the data can't then be used in
 the OSM DB.

+1
That is a very good point.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
 The current contributor terms for new accounts require you grant a licence to
 the OSMF to do 'any act that is restricted by copyright', subject to section 3
 which says that OSMF will distribute under CC-BY-SA, ODbL/DbCL, or 'another 
 free
 and open licence'.  Since you are not the copyright holder for the OS OpenData
 content, I don't believe you can grant such a licence to the OSMF.

 If you interpret the text more loosely and don't require that you grant a 
 licence
 as it says, but instead that you make sure the OSMF has the necessary 
 permission
 one way or another, then they still aren't quite right, because the permission
 given by the Ordnance Survey doesn't really allow 'any free and open licence'.

This is exactly the problem I see with the proposed CT's that many
people have already voiced. It creates an incompatibility with any
non-PD data sources.

The CT's llow the possible relicense of OSM data in the future, but
that comes at the price of restricting any incorperation of any free
but not PD datasets into OSM.

But I suppose if that is what the OSMF wants then that is fine thats
their choice.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 My statistics are of course flawed - they do not capture objects
 individually tagged source=nearmap rather than on the changeset, and if an
 object has been modified more than once in a nearmap changeset, it has
 been counted twice. Also, I counted ALL objects for any changeset that said
 something with nearmap, so if someone put comment=tons of POIs from GPS
 plus one road from nearmap that counts them all. And probably lots of other
 errors.

I don't really know what others do, but I no longer tag my changeset
with nearmap, only individual objects with source=nearmap (without
mentioning nearmap in the comment).

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk