Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news
Hi thanks to all for responding and in particular to the offers of help from Luis, Thomas and Diane. I use Luis' email below to give more detail about our activities. See in-line. It is also now my strong personal opinion that we should now engage a paid part-time General Counsel but that needs discussion and OSMF consensus. We are currently completely volunteer, so it is a big step On 19/11/2014 00:57, Luis Villa wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com mailto:penor...@mac.com wrote: On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties. Hi, Mike, others- Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities of the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I can participate in WG activities. The scope of the LWG is listed at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group Also, here is our 2013+ Action Plan which was formally submitted to the board and so represents our formal scope document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub and for, completeness, draft 2014 Action Plan: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRH5-LtzXiLhFFoo4iDu8mKfIUv1dhLYTwRZxBgNhJ8/pub Thanks, Paul. I hope you and the rest of the group don't mind me asking some more questions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future. Interesting. How often does the group meet, in practice? Is there also a fair bit of email between meetings, or...? We've progressively wound down from 2 meetings a week(!) to one per month, which is about right. The current gap in frequency is, I hope, transient. We have a low volume of emails in between on strategic discussion and have also been experimenting with circular resolutions. We are also getting an increasing amounts of license enqurires along the lines of I intend to XYZ, is it OK to use your data. It mentions referrals to outside counsel - is that still WSGR or is it someone else? Yes, WSGR. We occassionally ask for, and get pro bono advice, on specific issues. I note quite a few non-licensing topics—DMCA, Facebook, etc. Are those common or is this unusually timed? Not very common. I wanted to keep our name as License Working Group to emphasize our strategic direction and nature. Our primary task is the promotion of open geospatial data through practical, coherent and clear licensing. But we are a catch-all for anything considered legal. I am also keen on the area of risk mitigation, so conducting a DMCA review in conjunction with our Data Working Group was an important but finite activity. One other thing we've been involved in is policy documents, for example outlining our general position to diplomats on issues such as geographic name clashes and disputed borders ... we create a final draft that goes to the board for endorsement. We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of individual associate members - it's not expected that all associate members would participate in all parts of the LWG's work. If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help who would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be done too. How often are votes actually held? Or is it mostly consensus-based anyway? Except for our circular resolutions experiments where it is practical, I believe we have never actually had or needed a vote! My general policy has been that we are deliberately a group of people with disparate personal views, on for example what type of license we should have, and that if we do not have unamimous agreement, or at least assent, then we have not reached the right solution. Does the WG have formal legal obligations as a committee of the board (or otherwise) or is it informal/advisory? (To explain that another way: in some organizations, groups like the LWG are board committees, and so certain formal requirements apply to their members — duties of good faith, attendance, voting rules, etc. In some orgs, they are essentially purely advisory so have no formal legal obligations.) Informal/advisory. It would be good to go beyond our scope document above to formally define that ... something we could use help on! Thanks- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 /This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia
[OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news
The License Working Group is undermanned and has only met twice this year, most recently on 28th October. [1] This is due in great part to my lack of time, enthusiasm and attention in calling meetings. I am therefore stepping down as below and welcome volunteers to join as full members and indeed, subject to the agreement of other LWG members and board endorsement, take over the chair role. I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties. It has been brought to my attention that this might therefore suit legal practioners who would otherwise have a conflict of interest. We would certainly welcome involvement from real lawyers! Lastly, Satoshi Iida, an extremely active member of the OSM Japan community has asked to participate in LWG and I welcome him enthusiastically. It is important to broaden our scope beyond Western Europe/US thinking. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes === Slightly edited copy of email sent to LWG == Dear LWG, and CC Board for their information, I feel that I do not, and will be unable to give, LWG the time and attention it needs. I have also been in the position for at least 6 years and it is time for a new and more enthusiastic face. I am therefore formally resigning as Chair and invite the LWG to consider a replacement. I would prefer that this was not a member of the current board, and therein lies a problem. I am asking Simon now his current status, but apart from him, all other current members are also board members. I have also one piece of good news in that Satoshi Iida, an extremely active member of the OSM Japan community has asked to participate and I welcome him enthusiastically. I regret adding even more to the current board's starting load, but think it best to just face facts. I am therefore happy to stay in a caretaker role until that person is in place, but emphasise that this will be less than ideal. The issues that LWG should ideally be dealing with are: * Assisting end-users by developing clarificatory community guidelines for providing OSM-based data services (rather than maps) in a mixed data environment. * License compatibility with CC 4 and the general issue of license harmonisation. * Diligently answering now frequent license enquiries. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Google awarded patent on automatic correction of road geometry from imagery
This comes to me via Simon Poole, so the OSMF board is aware. http://apb.directionsmag.com/entry/google-patent-updating-map-data-using-satellite-imagery/402398?utm_source=dlvr.itutm_medium=tumblr http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN/8731305 The invention claimed is a A computer-implemented method so I am not sure scan-reading the patent whether that includes humans looking at digital imagery and making db corrections via computer. If so, then obviously (our) prior art is going to blow this apart. If not, then anyone working on automated road detection algorithms should be aware. Interestingly, if you scroll down through the patent itself, you'll see that they specifically mention correcting US TIGER data. Mike *Abstract* Map data are overlaid on satellite imagery. A road segment within the map data is identified, and the satellite imagery indicates that the road segment is at a different geographic position than a geographic position indicated by the map data. The endpoints of the road segment in the map data are aligned with the corresponding positions of the endpoints in the satellite imagery. A road template is applied at an endpoint of the road segment in the satellite imagery, and the angle of the road template that matches the angle of the road segment indicated by the satellite imagery is determined by optimizing a cost function. The road template is iteratively shifted along the road segment in the satellite imagery. The geographic position of the road segment within the map data is updated responsive to the positions and angles of the road template. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text
Thanks to all have responded specifically or generally on our community guidelines draft. I have been able to make a number of small changes which tighten and clarify without changing intent. I have made one large edit by replacing my original horizontal cuts text with some that I believe is better [1]. We (LWG) want to make it very clear that if a map is made with different layers, folks can't just arrange the layers artificially to weasel out of data share-alike obligations. I think the new text says that very clearly and in a manner better matching the concepts of derivative and collective database data sources. However, it does come from a suggestion by a commercial company, so for transparency I declare that and invite any comments. If there are no controversies by the end of the week, we'll begin the next step [2] which is for the Foundation to endorse the text as being a reasonable community consensus and transfer it to the osmfoundation.org. As a check-and-balance, that endorsement will be done by the board not by the License Working Group. Mike [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Creative Commons license question
This is a pure CC question. An organisation is making a short film/video which will be released CC-BY. They want to show (fleetingly) OSM map tiles ... which are CC-BY-SA- 2.0. Can they do that? [And if anyone in the UK wants to help them by creating tiles from scratch under a CC-BY license, let me know and I'll pass on. It does seem to be in a good cause. But the core question is still a good one to answer.] Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Luis, Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, I hope you don't mind that I've referenced the mail link on the page for resource reading! On 30/04/2014 00:10, Luis Villa wrote: I think it is pretty clear that this rule is only for OSM/ODBL, but it wouldn't hurt to make that more explicit. (It *has* to be only about OSM, because you can't judge whether something is substantial without knowing about the nature of the database (quantitative) and how the data was obtained (qualitative).) Good point and done on the general Community Guideline page. Few other comments: * It might be helpful to link to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features when talking about Features, assuming those are the same concept, which I admit I'm still not 100% sure about? * It might be helpful to explain better why the page is focused on insubstantial rather than substantial. * The village/town distinction doesn't seem very helpful to me. If the goal really is to push out commercial projects, very few commercial projects are going to be viable at the town level - the vast majority will be national level, with a few exceptions for London/Paris/NY-level cities. So saying you can use towns would still block out most commercial use while perhaps allowing some small governments to do useful things. But I may be misunderstanding the goal here? * I find This definition aims to:...Build a case for the qualitative interpretation of Substantial to be slightly confusing - I /think/ that what is meant is something like This guideline attempts to clarify what uses would constitute a substantial qualitative use of OSM data (perhaps implying that many important uses are not going to be quantitatively substantial?), but I'm really not sure. I would clarify or remove that. I've done some rewording to the summary which I hope addresses these. I've not added a link to the map features page, they are not (really) the same concept. A Feature is how an ordinary map viewing individual would see things: a single road (even if broken into different segments for speed limits), a lake, a pub (even if tagged with multitudinous detail on the beer and ATM machines). A general note to all: these guidelines are directed at folks who are not familiar with OSM, so need to worded accordingly using simple, hopeful translatable, wording and sentences. * Hope this is helpful- Indeed! Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)
On 28/04/2014 23:27, Mikel wrote: Further I note there was 0 (zero) response to the proposed updated community guidelines that go a long way in clarifying a number of the grey areas, indicating that the whole upset is not about fixing real issues. Simon, first i've heard about this. Can you point to where it's posted please, and also, explain the process by which they were created, proposed, and approved? Thanks Mikel and all, Here is one of the emails: https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg49397.html And the process and main page are here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines We'd like to get some closure on some of the longer lived items as well as better publicise the whole process, so I am about to go to the main list. Any discussion or input however small in the rather calmer waters of this list first is greatly welcome. The more polished the guidelines are, the better. We also have a number of issues that are very immature in terms of constructing a useful guideline. What we have been lacking, with some notable exceptions, is data users prepared to give a real use case that they can share in a reasonable level of detail. Being able to deal with concrete rather than myriad hypothetical cases makes progress much faster. If you are user or potential user of OSM data, do share real-world issues here. Or, contact us at le...@osmfoundation.org. We can handle commercial-in-confidence provided that the end result is shareable publicly and applies to all equally within the parameters of our license. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution
I've renamed the subject because it has gone way off topic, but I wanted to come back on Tobias' comment because it struck a chord and I would like to share a personal research topic. I am curious to evolve the idea further to see if there is any positive value. Open data is a different animal to software source code and highly-creative works and I suspect it will a few more years yet until we understand it all fully. I personally see this unwanted data is an underlying theme under many of the issues the LWG has been looking at under the Community Guidelines process :- Geocoding: So I have to share a patient's medical record because it is geocoded against OSM? Dynamic Data: So if I use OpenStreetMap car park location data, I have to share the real-time occupancy data? Algorithmic transformations: So I thought of this clever idea to pre-format OSM data for fast loading into my game. Now I have to share my that or my algorithm? General maps: I want to use OSM to show locations of restaurants on my restaurant review site. Now I have to share the reviews? And so on. Now many of these issues may be resolved, and in some case have been resolved, in other ways which remain within the scope of the current ODbL version. But a very simple way of dealing with everything in one go is to say: *The OpenStreetMap project collects long-lived geospatial data as a set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only.* [Wording needs improving!] And then to say: *And share-alike only applies to what we collect.* Again, it just a research topic. I see it as benefiting the OpenStreetMap project enormously but at the same time potentially debasing the whole concept of share-alike for the wider open data community ... perhaps those restaurant reviews should be shared? Mike On 30/04/2014 23:35, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 30.04.2014 19:37, Rob Myers wrote: On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it. The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them, not (just) OSM. If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem. I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood, never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the creation of a produced work. But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a lot more than just giving data back when you fix things. Thus it would be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that spirit, as much as I wish that was enough. ___ 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] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey
I think the License Working Group would echo exactly what Jonathan says. While it does not solve the problem of being able to map where there are no mappers, may I also seize the opportunity to promote John McKerrell's excellent OpenStreetView? It is a great under-exploited tool! http://openstreetview.org/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Openstreetview Single photo and bulk upload works well. I am slowly adding my collection of 40,000+ OSM survey photos in the hope that other mappers will be able squeeze out even more map detail. You can choose from a variety of licenses for the actual photo, but the photo metadata is CC0. Mike On 07/04/2014 17:16, jonathan wrote: This is obviously a legal grey area and until it ends up in court I suspect it will remain a grey area. However, I feel what IS black and white is that if we were to officially use Google StreetView or any non-open source to build our data then we should expect a lawsuit from Google or any other owner of said service/medium/technology. Also, we should remember that their legal budget will be much bigger than ours. In my opinion, we can only have one stance and that is such services are not available for us to use as a source for our database. We should, however, approach Google et al and ask them if they prohibit such use, I'm sure they'll say that we can't use it, but at least we'll know. To use any such service without express permission risks EVERYTHING, we would be leaving a door open for Google et al to file against us in the future and OSM could just descend into a legal black hole. Google would love that! We MUST be whiter than white. The Open in OpenStreetMap is a responsibility as well as a right and to protect that right we must act responsibly. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 05/04/2014 16:50, Paulo Carvalho wrote: Dear fellow mappers, Let me present myself to you. I'm a OSM mapper from the Brazil community and a question rose there which caused a split in the group regarding Google Street View to perform virtual surveys, such as taking notes of house numbers and plotting them in the maps. After reading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#2a._Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps.2FNokia_Maps.2F3F , I was pondering about the impossibility of copyright and licenses apply to facts and reality (not regarding philosophical aspects). Google Street View photos depict reality or facts, thus I could use them to observe reality and derive interpretations which would be genuine creative work. It would be illegal to use the images in Mapillary, for instance, but the facts depicted by the images are not property of Google. Your thoughts, please Paulo Carvalho ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Community Guideline - Regional Cuts
Going back several years, Flickr started using OpenStreetMap as a base map for some but not all cities around the world. As a community, we were happy with that. But it does mean that we are saying the you publish a global map and have parts of it coming from OpenStreetMap without triggering share-alike on the rest. We have been asked about the Does and Don'ts. As a reality-check, I would therefore like us to have a guideline that protects the principles behind share-alike and encourages use of OpenStreetMap within large-scale or global electronic maps. Here is the proposed wording: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Regional_Cuts_-_Guideline I have three questions for you: 1) Is it basically OK with you personally? (Reality check!) 2) What is the smallest size we should allow? If it done at a continent level, I think no one would see a problem. But if we go to a smaller size, then there comes a point where map makers clearly avoid any responsibility to help improve our data by taking a village here, a village there where OSM is best and using other non-public data elsewhere. A win-win is to say OK you use our data but we want you to take some good, some bad so that you have an incentive to help fill in the bad. One option would be to limit to whole countries, whatever size. Another, which I personally favour, is cities/greater metropolitan areas. See more on the wiki page. 3) Are you OK with the wording allowing adjustment of roads, railways etc across boundaries without triggering share-alike? There seems to be no public value(?). See wiki page for more discussion. Mike Michael Collinson License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload
Thanks. I have now written to their contact email address asking them to comply with our license or remove the data. I will report back on what transpires. Mike Michael Collinson License Working Group On 15/09/2013 16:54, Walter Nordmann wrote: got some: New from 18. August 2013: http://wikimapia.org/28575157/de/Hummelsbütteler-Kirchenweg-15 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/171350548/history And another new one with an error at the upper right corner http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2423349643 from the german forum: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=362179#p362179 Regards walter - [url=http://osm.wno-edv-service.de/residentials] Missing Residentials Map 1.17[/url] [url=http://osm.wno-edv-service.de/plz] Postcode Map 2.0.2[/url] -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Wiki-Mapia-Mass-Upload-tp5777641p5777659.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] UK Open Gov License
On 11/10/2013 00:41, Jonathan wrote: Can someone advise me on whether the UK Open Government License allows for us to use it as a source in OSM? http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ Hi Jonathan and all, Basically, yes, no problem. Make sure that any material is indeed under the UK Open Government License and not the Ordnance Survey bastardised version. Then, look for any attribution wording and add to OpenStreetMap's attribution page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution . In more detail: This is version two of the license. The OpenStreetMap Foundation License Working Group looked at the original version [1] and felt that it was compatible with incorporating data into the OpenStreetMap geodata database provided that attribution provisions are complied with as above. I have now carefully compared the two and see nothing that makes me change that opinion ... it would be good if another pair of eyes did the same as a double-check. If anything it is slightly less restrictive with the removal of some wording about Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Please note that these are layman's opinions. I am not a lawyer and neither I nor the LWG can offer any formal legal opinion. Mike Michael Collinson [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/1/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] About Boxes ... attributing OpenStreetMap
Hi all, There has been community discussion about refining the Legal FAQ on the issue of what is reasonable attribution for certain specific media cases. I have created a Community Guideline wiki page [1]. This is not about being legal but what you personally think is reasonable for what you contribute and what best promotes OpenStreetMap. So please do not hesitate to pitch in. Based on feedback received, the LWG will amend the Legal FAQ. And in more detail The conversation was specifically about About Boxes but the LWG thinks it is generalisable to other cases where it is arguably difficult to place a full (text) attribution physically right on or next to a map. The LWG takes the position that the LWG itself should be neutral per se but that OpenStreetMap in general has responsibilities to propose answers. We are the dominant open geospatial data project and probably the global leader as a live open data project exploring the specific legal issues of open data as distinct from highly creative works and software [2]. The LWG therefore encourages the community to consider specific guidelines for specific types of media. This will help not only ODbL license users but also potentially CC4 as well. May I therefore request anyone interested to take a look over our existing guidelines [3], look at the basic questions I have posed [1] and tell us what you think, either there (preferred), to this list or to le...@osmfoundation.org. I'll eventually review the past list mailings and add in the comments already received unless someone beats me to it, hint, hint. Mike OpenStreetMap Foundation License Working Group [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/Attribution_For_Different_Media_Types [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIvuygF4pZd_PfBbxg-acAP9c_lA37_sTEkdvccIoXk/pub July Minutes, see Item 6 [3] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#Where_to_put_it.3F What the current Legal FAQ has to say [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines FYI, new doc. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories
Simon, Oliver, Dermot and I have give a finally look over the document and are happy to now send it to the board as our formal proposal. However, as Chair I would really prefer a formal quorate, 4, for such things and ask you to indicate yes or no by email before I send it. https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/1uQ0hpkFxqdNf7aPMk_5PaHFZojxULMcWXxLJRbYq4oE/edit The draft is of the last meeting + your changes + we went through and considered and clarified what each OpenStreetMap meant. As an interesting aside, it defines OpenStreetMap without qualification to be the database itself rather than any human entity ... may be a useful legal construct in the future. I also intend forwarding it to the Japanese community since treatment of disputed-island naming is an issue there as it ties the hands of the national mapping agency on how cooperative they can be with us. If I get any substantial feedback, I will forward to board. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013
The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC. I would like to draw your attention to the following: We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to this list, is most welcome. We've started putting together a remit document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us. You can contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us for one meeting to see if you like it. If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks. In the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right of way route definitions. Do you have important issues in your country? Are you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal reasons? Mike Michael Collinson Chair, License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi Michael, First of all, thanks for the link. I've read it carefully and it doesn't really answer my questions, it just raises some new ones. Those guidelines, as they are written, treat the issue of proprietary/closed source code very superficially and without considering too much the practical consequences. They also don't really answer the question what is a Database. Let's take, for example, the statement Rendering databases, for example those produced by Osm2pgsql, are clearly databases. First of all, what are rendering databases? I don't share the same clearliness of that statement, frankly. Another issue is machine-readable form of an algorithm. Who says I should interpret that as a source code? And if I do, under what license can/should/must I release the source code? I'm certainly not going to release my work under the Public Domain. I think the core issue that needs to be addressed and answered is: *is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM ecosystem*? If we follow the strict reading logic of the mentioned guideliness and the one expressed in Frederik's answer, I would certainly have to say the answer is NO. I see some serious issues with the way how we approach the whole ODbL thing. As someone who has invested a lot of time and energy into OSM and who is trying to find a business model that would enable me to stay in the OSM domain, I think the core questions about ODbL have not been answered and this scares people/companies off. If the OSM community wants all the OSM-based software to be open source, then please say so. But please treat all the players the same: Apple, esri, Google and one-man-band companies. Best regards, Igor On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Igor, I wonder if this resource helps with your question? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline (a work in progress) Mike On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: (After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and others.) [snip] One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted prominently in all relevant locations which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? Hi Jonathan, The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using tortuous language. It has been a while. ODbL can basically be used in two ways; a (or even multiple) contents license more restrictive than the ODbL itself or less restrictive. The first case can be useful if distributing a collection of things, content, that are useful discretely, for example photos or scientific papers. In that case, the database can be downloaded freely, sent around to others and used in-house, but each photo might have a commercial fee-paying license if it was then extracted and published in a magazine. We used the second case as we wanted a one stop shop whereby end users only have to consider one license and not compare and contrast. The CTs, for example, give end users no extra rights and no extra freedoms. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: (After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and others.) On 22/10/12 23:13, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) Then this is clearly a loophole. You could render (with a dedicated style) the whole world in a very high zoom level (even as raster, if you're in doubt whether vectors might fall under ODbL), apply image recognition on it (would be simple if you used one rendered layer per feature) and reassemble the whole database. I am simplifying this process, but it is clearly possible. This (both Jonathan's comment and your response) confuses copyright law. Yes, you don't have to release a Produced Work under ODbL. But if you don't have a license on the Produced Work, then all rights are reserved. Only *if* copyright is there at all. What is in question is whether a substantial amount of material that is OSM's copyright is present in a map I make using OSM's data. If it isn't, then it follows that OSM cannot reserve any rights in my work, explicitly or otherwise. No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this is covering very old ground. This is the LWG understanding: The buzz phrase is layered copyright. Using an open licensed photo of a MacDonald's restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's logo. In our world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can publish it as a Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture but if someone then comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute OSM data from it, then OSM copyright applies to them. Mike http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi Igor, I wonder if this resource helps with your question? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline (a work in progress) Mike On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova
Hi Bekim, If nobody else gives you feedback I will do so next week. I am away at the moment. Regards, Michael Collinson On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:11, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Mike, Hopefully someone will send some feedback. Best, Bekim On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I dont understand that myself, it seems a bit fuzzy to me but this is the right mailing list and I hope you will get some feedback, thanks mike On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Ok but I don't know how to go about and do that! That's my problem. Where is the starting point? I am ready to approve, sign, confirm anything required! Best, Bekim On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Bekim, I have been working on understanding the new license even today. it is cc-by-sa + database rights (odbl) + the right for osm to change the licence at will in the future. basically you need to grant the osm the rights to use the data, Michael can give you more info about this, thanks, mike On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Gent's, Some days ago I noticed that all those detailed roads that were on OSM in Kosova were removed. Does anyone have any information, like when? why? were removed. I am about to contact OSM and any assistance and additional information is welcome! Best, Bekim -- about.me/bekim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GIS Kosova group. To post to this group, send email to gis-kos...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gis-kosova+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gis-kosova?hl=en. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- about.me/bekim -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- about.me/bekim ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mistake in French translation of the CT
On 20/09/2012 16:32, Pieren wrote: Hi legal-list, I would like to point out an error in your French translation of the CT: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR compared to its original (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms). Section 3. says CC-BY-SA 2.0 ; ou toute autre licence libre et ouverte de même type (comme, par exemple, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) qui pourra être ponctuellement choisie par une majorité de 2/3 des contributeurs actifs parmi les membres d’OSMF. where the English version says : CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. The French version says that a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors within the OSMF members is required (parmi les membres d’OSMF.) which makes a big difference. Could someone fix it, please ? regards Pieren Thanks for pointing that out Pieren. I'll put it on the LWG TODO list to make sure it gets done. None of us speak good French though, if anyone would like to provide an accurate translation, I would be grateful. We can double check it with our original legal translator but I don't think that is imperative as the intent is clear. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data
On 20/09/2012 07:32, Mike Dupont wrote: Hi there, I have a question about imports and the ODBl, I see that some sources have decided to dual license the data http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue But how can some third parties data be compatible when the CT says it can change any time, surly they might be compatible with the current instance of the license, but how can they be compatible with future versions of the license when they are no known? How can a contributor import any data and keep the data open to license change? How can you keep any imports at all from people who have not agreed to the CT directly? thanks mike This one has been covered pretty exhaustively previously. To recap for all interested: () The CTs where written carefully to say, If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. current license terms, so ODbL 1.0. () The future is the future, so cannot be known. () Should the license terms change in the future, there is a possibility that imported data may become incompatible. Therefore the original licensor needs be contacted for approval. Given the general trend to more open data, after what we are all about, that approval may well be given. () Note also that, by design, a duty to provide first level attribution is placed on the OSMF. This survives any potential license change and is general the most important concern of government organisations. () The is always the possibility that data may need to be removed and that is one of the minuses of imports. That is why it is important to always understand third-party licenses and to get general consent of any potentially affected, usually national or regional level, OSM mapping community before importing. There is a healthy debate indirectly about this going on in the general talk list. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data
On 20/09/2012 09:13, Stephan Knauss wrote: On 20.09.2012 07:32, Mike Dupont wrote: How can a contributor import any data and keep the data open to license change? How can you keep any imports at all from people who have not agreed to the CT directly? I agree with you in this point. If we import donated data, it must be stated that OpenStreetmap can publish the data under ODbL or any other license as specified in the CT. Could we create a special version of the Contributor Terms for data donations? So they could sign it. We could mail it to the OSMF to keep the records. We certainly envisioned that possibility when we designed the contributor terms, though so far it has not proved necessary. Instead, OSMF can enter into an MOU. We've done that with the South African spatial directorate for example and there are discussions going on in Finland. I believe that in the case of AND Dutch data, we've agreed that we will notify them of any potential license change so thatany ramifications can be discussed. Henk Hoff may be able to give clearer information on that. If you have any particular case, the LWG will be happy to work with you on it. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: NLSF OSM license check / comments needed
Hi Pekka, Thanks for taking this on. I have put some comments in-line. The usual caveat, IANAL! Dear Friends, This legal-lists seem to be quite quiet. So, maybe you all have plenty of time to discuss about National Land Survey of Finland (NLSF) license vs. OSM licenses. As you may know, NLSF has released all their topographic information for free use. Their license is open, more open than OSM (CC-BY-SA or ODbL). I think. You can read NLSF's license terms: http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/NLS_open_data_licence_version1_20120501 It seems that quite OSMers in Finland like to benefit NLSF data sets. We have good discussion going on about imports, background map/imagery usage etc. Mainly discussions will be in Finnish on IRC, forums and mailing lists. Now we have also some legal questions and I'd like to hear your comments: · Is NLSF Open Data license compatible with OSM current and new license? There is a problem wíth 2.2 require third parties to provide the same information when granting rights to copies of dataset(s) or products and services containing such data and This should be theoretically OK under CC-BY-SA but does imply that any user of OSM data is going to have to check whether it contains it contains NLSF data and attribute, even on a map. The impracticability of this was a major reason for moving away from CC-BY-SA. ODbL does not force map makers to attribute each and every contributor. This is by design but would violate this NLSF requirement. We had the same problem with the Ordnance Survey in the UK. I can email you the text that I sent them to explain the issue. · If we import NLSF data, we need to add link to their license into http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en. Right? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution is the official place. Merging the two together in some way is an LWG TODO. · Contributors: we need to add NLSF to this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. Is there any format what they should answer? Should this demand come from OSMF or can I do it? You can do it. The attribution given to the Ordance Survey can be used as a template. · NLSF terms of use, section 2.2 last bullet: /...remove the name of the Licensor from the product or service, if required to do so by the Licensor /Some people think that this is barrier and OSM license won't accept this. Personally I don't see any problems with this. If we import NLSF data to OSM (and we have mentions in wiki about their copyright etc.) and in the future NLSF demands to remove their name, we can remove it from wiki pages. We don't include NLSF name in every single copy (digital and/or analog) and we don't clear NLSF names from OSM copies. I agree with you. The English version unambiguously talks about removing the name of the Licensor, not the data of the Licensor. Easy enough. Mike If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the list or directly. I also promise to act as contact person between OSM and NLSF, there is already some confusion and I will make separate email about that. Rgs, Pekka -- Pekka Sarkola Gispo Oy pekka.sark...@gispo.fi mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi - GSM +358 40 725 2042 www.gispo.fi http://www.gispo.fi -- www.paikkatieto.com http://www.paikkatieto.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] BC Open Government License
Thanks Paul, this is good news. These kinds of license are appearing in a number of countries and are a great way of providing open geodata by governmental organisations. One small correction, but a positive one: The license is based on the pure UK Open Government License [1] rather than the one used by the UK OS OpenData. The Ordnance Survey use an adultered version which is not necessarily compatible with OSM; we had to get explicit clarification from them to use data. I've just read through the BC license and my conclusion is also it is compatible with our contributor terms in conjunction with ODbL, CC-BY-SA or a future license provided that on our official attribution page [2] we attribute them (5a) and state that we have not official status (5b). The existing OS attribution can be used as a model. A link to a separate project web-page describing the data and how we use it would also help with 5c. My only caution is 7c (third party rights) but agree with Paul's conclusion. My guess is that this would be more applicable to documents that contain specific elements like a photo or map with more restrictive licensing. For geodata, just check that if there is suite of datasets, that there is not one with more restrictive rights. Mike [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution On 03/05/2012 01:17, Paul Norman wrote: The BC government has released data under the Open Government License for Government of BC Information[1] which is based on the same license used for OS OpenData information[2]. OS OpenData can be used in OSM[3] The OGL BC is, broadly speaking, an attribution only license that makes allowances for attribution where combining information from multiple sources. The only potential concerns are under section 7, exemptions, and section 10, governing law. 7a and 7b cover information that the FIPPA act prohibits the disclosure of. The government does not have the authority to grant permission to use information FIPPA prevents the disclosure of so even if these clauses were not present it would not change what they had licensed.[4] In practice this is a non-issue since the type of data that would be of interest to OSM is not personal information that the government is prohibited from disclosing. These terms are also of the BC equivalent of the OS terms. 7c states that the government does not license what it doesn't have the rights to license. Without this term they would still not be granting a license to information they can't license. 7d is not an issue. There is no database directive in BC and otherwise the term is the same as the OS term 10 is the same as the OS term. Given that the OS license is already acceptable I see no reason why this license is also not acceptable. [1]: http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/admin/terms.page [2]: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence. pdf [3]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata [4]: FIPPA would override the license. ___ 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] Confirmirmation on Natural England OGL data required
On 30/04/2012 17:38, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Can someone please confirm that I am able to make use of the Natural England data released under the Open Government Licence. I was under the impression that this licence is compatible with OSMs CTs and ODBL licence, however the line about attribution has left me unsure. I am currently exploring how best to use this data (so far the quality looks good - as if boundaries have been determined from 1:1 or better Ordnance Survey maps), and am discussing this on talk-gb. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bVnhYbHNaVVVnWWM http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/data/gidatasetsfeature.aspx Thanks, RobJN A cautious yes but. Natural England is using two licenses [1]. The Open Government License and the munged Natural England and Ordnance Survey Open Government Licence http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/open-government-licence-NE-OS_tcm6-30743.pdf Your Google docs is the pure Open Government License and your quoted www.naturalengland.org.uk webpage also suggests this. However, you might want to email them and double check. If the pure Open Government License, then you are fine. Just add to our Attribution page [3]. I suggest text like this: Contains data from from Natural England © Natural England copyright [year] and which contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right [year]. Natural England does not endorse OpenStreetMap or OpenStreetMap's use of Natural England data. plus a link to their license. A separate wiki project page about the data and an entry in the Import Catalogue [4] are also very helpful. The but bit: The Natural England and Ordnance Survey Open Government Licence http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/open-government-licence-NE-OS_tcm6-30743.pdf has an extra clause in that would force anyone using OSM data to also attribute Natural England, probably even if the map was on the other side of the world. Clearly not practical. The OS has done the same but has kindly given us what amounts to an exception for use under ODbL (only). This does not mean, however, that Natural England can or will do the same. If you have any further questions or need help, do feel free to contact me off-line. Mike [1] http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/copyright/default.aspx [2] http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/open-government-licence-NE-OS_tcm6-30743.pdf [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-dk] åben offentlig licens og OSM, part 2
On 20/04/2012 13:23, Jonas Häggqvist wrote: [preamble cut] Hi, I wonder about these two requirements in the license[1], and whether or not they could present a problem: - - sikrer, at udnyttelsen af materialet sker på en måde, som ikke kan give indtryk af at have officiel status eller at være støttet eller godkendt af licensgiver. - sikrer, at udnyttelsen af materialet ikke vildleder eller giver et misvisende billede af materialet eller materialets kilde. - Translation (by Google, very slightly tweaked by me): - - Ensure that the utilization of the material occurs in a manner that does not give the impression of having official status or to be endorsed or approved by the licensor. - Ensure that the utilization of the material does not mislead or give a misleading picture of the material or material source. - [1] http://digitaliser.dk/resource/600558/artefact/Den+%c3%a5bne+offentlige+licens.pdf I believe that both can be can be met in our attribution of the licensor on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution OpenStreetMap's utilization of this material does not imply any official status nor endorsement or approval by . You can find out more about and this material at http:\\xsite.dk A short description may also help as would be a link to a wiki project page describing the data and how we are using it. I think the current attribution we give the UK Ordnance Survey would satisfy both requirements: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#UK:_Ordnance_Survey_.28OpenData.E2.84.A2.29 I think this is a really nice license and hope it is more widely adopted by governmental agencies. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of Poland and which is still there. The UMP project collects road routes within Poland and makes routable maps for Garmin devices publishes its data under CC-BY-SA. I hope that they will consider ODbL in the future, but that is their choice and I am sure that they will want to see how we fare first. From what I understand of how UMP uses OSM data, (which may not be 100% right yet), I have made the following draft statement. May I ask you: - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a statement? - is it true? - can you see any negative consequences? The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open. Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying road routes within Poland. UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no special permission is required. (DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY!) The key line for me is the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying road routes within Poland ... this is probably granting permission for something not completely within the ODbL. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
On 13/02/2012 12:53, Simon Poole wrote: Am 13.02.2012 12:33, schrieb Frederik Ramm: This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean the CTs guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence changes, but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down the line. My statement should naturally be read in the context of the statement below: if we distribute your data, the attribution via website (and further schemes that are being developed) will remain intact. But Simon is right when he says data with such requirements would have to be removed. This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be one hell of a job. In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you could surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the provisions of free and open and 2/3 of mappers agree. This as been whittled down to you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current license and you don't even have to *tell* us what further restrictions it is under. Any future license change has therefore become very unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC license -, and not much remains of the license change provision in the CTs. While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to data that is in the database should be attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal). And not even that. Using a distribution license without any attribution requirement and the OSMF obligation to provide first level attribution is compatible and works together. *If* non-share-alike licenses become the future norm for open sharing of highly factual datasets, then I believe european licenses like the generic UK Open Goverment License [1] will become the template. These require first level attribution only ... which is the primary reason for the CTs attribution clause. If anyone is interested on what I mean by first level attribution, I have a draft paper here http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_103fdxjk3qt Mike [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Ulf Möller remembered
I am deeply shocked this morning to learn of the murder of friend Ulf. A more formal remembrance is being prepared and I have copied some news links below, but I hope you will not mind me saying some personal simple words here as I feel it is the appropriate place. As you may know, Ulf was an extremely active member of the License Working Group while we gave input to the final draft of the Open Database License and while we made the contributor terms. In a group that actually achieves things, each person often has an informal role. Ulf acted on always making sure that the detail matched his and our conscience. He often stuck to his guns on something that we just weren't getting ... insistently but courteously. The subsequent discussion meant that we came up with something better, often much better. Whether the documents finally sink or swim, I think Ulf has contributed something very concrete to the evolution of Open Data IP. Even the contributor terms are now going to be used outside the OpenStreetMap project. Ulf and I also felt that the OSM Foundation was too UK-focused and there was not enough broad European involvement. I was very pleased when he decided to run for and succeeded in joining the board. Today, membership is very mixed nationality and board nationalities change from year to year. Just as it should be. Some continents are still unrepresented, but that will change and I am sure he and I will be very happy. Folks are many faceted, and I am looking only at a small part of Ulf's life, but to me these two things are part of his lasting legacy. To a decent and intelligent guy. Mike Michael Collinson http://www.ndr.de/regional/schleswig-holstein/trittau115.html http://www.ln-online.de/lokales/stormarn/3339992/die-polizei-sucht-ulf-moeller-aus-trittau http://www.mz-web.de/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ksta/pageatype=ksArtikelaid=1321007898341 http://www.mz-web.de/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ksta/pageatype=ksArtikelaid=1321007898341 http://www.mz-web.de/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ksta/pageatype=ksArtikelaid=1326456860424openMenu=1012902958704calledPageId=1012902958704listid=1018348861894 http://www.mz-web.de/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ksta/pageatype=ksArtikelaid=1326456860424openMenu=1012902958704calledPageId=1012902958704listid=1018348861894 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license
We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our contributor terms [1] and summary [2] . Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more practical to (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution. Legal pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the point, particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to mind. Does anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why? Mike LWG [1]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Queensland imports into OSM
Hi Chris, Thank you for info, I can follow it up now. Thanks also for the nice feedback! Mike LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Hi Simon, Basically no. Our stance is that the only copy of their data that is accessible is what they contributed only under CC-BY-SA in a database which is published CC-BY-SA. Whilst that stance may be arguable, the number of contributors is small, (3?), there is still a paradox between making a broad PD/CC0 declaration and not accepting the more limited subset new contributor terms, and there is a simple, practical solution without involving folks in a lot of technical work. Such mappers have taken a principled and clear but minority position that OSM data should be published PD/CC0 right now and have not accepted the contributors terms to make that point. The simple practical solution is to now accept the terms having made the point. Outside the right now, the new terms do not logically conflict and provide a rational mechanism for further engagement with the OSM community on what our license should be. Mike On 31/08/2011 12:07, Simon Poole wrote: Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to vouch for the data and accept the CTs? At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this would seem to be doable without creating a conflict. Simon ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
+1 Much appreciated, both the statement itself and Ben's efforts to get it. Mike On 15/06/2011 03:36, Richard Weait wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Ben Lastben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. Dear Ben, Thank you for providing this clear statement, for NearMap's contributions to the OpenStreetMap community, and for the generous decision to allow current NearMap-referenced data to remain in OSM. Best regards, Richard ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is mail address legal@... valid?
For me as a personal contributor, it looks great as is. It goes out with every extraction(?). You are making attribution credit reasonable to the medium (CC-BY-SA and CC-BY). You are crediting OpenStreetMap and properly identifying the CC-BY-SA license. You also have a link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright for second-level attribution ... we are following exactly such an approach with all direct extractions from OSM (Planet, CGIMap, Rails API); you should find the text in Planet and CGIMap already. It will work with ODbL too. You are not crediting all 400,000 OSM registrants in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. [1] but ODbL fixes that. ;-) Mike [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Section 4(c) last sentence On 05/06/2011 16:33, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: [snip] It is just about a proper way of attributing OSM in a Web Feature Service (WFS). I posted a question first to this mailing list on May 16th and then to the members of License Working Group on May 20th and another try on June 1st. Not so hurry to get an answer, I just wanted to know that the question has arrived and the working group is aware about it. The service itself is up and configured now so that the WFS service metadata includes links to OSM license page. I have also a separate web page describing the service and OSM license in mentioned there as well with. Service metadata is always available from http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getcapabilities and it contains AccessConstraints section with the following text Contains Map data from OpenStreetMap contributors http://www.openstreetmap.org/ under CC-BY-SA license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Additional OpenStreetMap constraints http://www.openstreetmap.orgcopyright?copyright_locale=en Contains spatial data from the National Land Survey of Finland (NLS) under NLS open license http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/ilmaisetaineistot The data from the service do not necessarily contain any hint about the origin of the data or the licenses. In WFS users are supposed to chech such things from the service metadata. However, WFS services can be used without studying the metadata throughly. An example of direct data access and the output: http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getfeaturetypename=tows:osm_polygonmaxfeatures=1 -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ 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] Phase 4 and what it means
I am also very hesitant to have a specific date now and basically support Kai's concept. Mostly the date thing is caution, I would like to move to Phase 4 as soon as possible but think we can then take our time getting as much ODbL coverage as possible. It is also disparate situations. At one extreme is ripping out and not replacing data where there may be a delayed solution available. At the other extreme, there is a local mapper or mapping party fixing up their local area with content equal to or better than a contributor who has clearly and publicly stated that they have no intention of ever accepting. [BTW, we will certainly make a full dump available upon the Phase 4 switch-over] Since the unknowns and what-ifs are now falling away fast, I suggest we focus in on what critical mass is and do what we can do to achieve it. My initial criteria with some examples are: - We should have the numbers. ODbL coverage weighted by size of contribution is looking great [1] but we are not there yet. I would like to have done our best to reach the large number of previous small and lapsed contributors and had a response. This is just beginning to come in this weekend. This may have important impact on local mappers. - Local mappers and communities have had a chance to assess actual rather than hypothetical impact in small areas and regions. - Large-scale individual contributors who would like to accept the new terms but feel they can't for some reason have been helped where practical and possible. - Where a specific import or derivation issue exists, short or medium term possibilities have been exhausted. In Australia, we may get a straight yes/no answer from Nearmap on keeping current contributions. In the UK there is the ambiguous position of OS Streetview data. Champions for individual blank and yellow tagged entries in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue welcome. Mike [1] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png On 05/06/2011 03:23, Kai Krueger wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Now I sense some uncertainty among mappers as to what phase 4 exactly means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. Yes, there are a number of people who have declined to relicense as it is the only way available to formally voice ones disagreement with any of a) the new licence, b) the CT or c) the process. Nevertheless, they remain adamant supports and enthusiasts of OSM. Just that they happen to disagree with what is best for the project and without being able to see into the future it is pretty much impossible to say for sure which cause of action is the best for the project. So it is important to try and not alienate either side as much as possible. Phase 4 is critical in this respect, as it is the first time ones decision has actual consequences for mappers and starts locking users out of the project, some of whom have put a huge amount of effort into OSM to ensure it has become a success and deserve everyones respect. So it is bound to give bad blood and result in highly emotional debates. Frederik Ramm wrote: Do not delete and re-map anything beforedate. We will send out a message to everyone who has not agreed to the license change, and inform them that after that date, mappers are likely to purge non-relicensed data and that if they want their data to remain, they need to redecide before that date. Out of the listed options, I would personally prefer this option most, as it imho leaves the most options open. However, rather than a specific date, I would advertise the date to be the time at which a critical mass is reached. I.e. when it becomes clear that sufficient data has successfully been relicensed that the damage due to data loss will be acceptable to the overall project. That then really is the point of no return at which one can start a graceful damage control by replacing no relicensable data. At that point I presume OSMF will decide on a formal date on which phase 5 will begin. In order to give all data users enough time to adapt to the new license and consider the consequences, I would expect OSMF to set this date at least a month or two in advance, which will then still give mappers a reasonable amount of time to start fixing up the holes that the relicensing process will produce in the data. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6441026.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is mail address le...@osmfoundation.org valid?
Hi Jukka, Yes, it is still in use and we read everything and we we do try to respond. Have we missed something? Mike License Working Group On 04/06/2011 06:57, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Hi, The page http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups#Licensing_Working_Group suggests that the licensing working group members should be reading posts sent to a group address le...@osmfoundation.org. Is that address still in use? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ 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] A legal question
Hi Eldad, This link http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License may also help with general information. We are evolving it to help folks such as yourself, so if there is anything unclear or confusing, please do no hesitate to email me. Mike On 16/04/2011 15:55, Simon Biber wrote: Hi Eldad, It sounds like your meta data is derived from the OSM map data, in which case it must be licensed as CC-BY-SA. This doesn't mean you have to actively contribute it back to the community. You can restrict access or allow users to set up access controls on your website. But if someone who does have access to the work decides to copy it and make it publically available, you can't prevent them from doing so. The CC-BY-SA license gives anybody that freedom. Kind regards, Simon. On 16/04/2011, at 10:54 PM, Eldad Yamin elda...@gmail.com mailto:elda...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I want to use OSM data/map in order to create a map based service. The users of my service will be able to create meta-data (POIs, trips and path) on the map and share it them with their friends. Please note, I'm not going to change the map data itself at all, only storing meta-data that was created by my users. Is it something that I must contribute back to the community or something that I can set as optional setting to my users? if the answer is yes, can I give my users the option to authorize who can view their data? Thanks, Eldad. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, time period for reply to a new license change (active contributor)
On 28/03/2011 00:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Sorry that I come quite late with this, it might be too late, and it was bothering me occasionally already for some months: if we really decided in the future to change the license, isn't 3 weeks a little short for such an important issue? I am referring to the time span required for an active contributor to reply to an email from the foundation. I feel this could be extended to say 6-8 weeks, because it is not completely improbable that someone is not reachable for 3 weeks, and I don't see a need for such a hurry in a case important like a license change (note we are now occupied with the current license change and discussions for over 3 years). Of course a potential new license change would most likely not appear from nowhere, and implying a benevolent foundation this is maybe not an issue, still for formal reasons I think this time span could be extended. Hi Martin, The discussion we had when picking three weeks went something like this: - In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal vote announcement. - Our general objective in the CTs is to leave future generations as much flexibility as possible while preserving overall project goals. - The CTs do not stop such a formal announcement and vote opening to be made much earlier. I certainly agree that 6-8 weeks is reasonable should we ever go through a big change again. - There may be ocassions when a small but vital change needs to be made if a problem/loop-hole is found with the current license. Hence three weeks ... two weeks for someone to be on holiday and one week for them to get organised and vote. I hope that makes sense. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Someone ought to do something ... dealing with violations of OSM's geodata license
This is a general question for discussion from the License Working Group. I may also ask on the main list as the constituency is different. There are now 1 to 2 reports every month of folks violating OSM's license by using OSM's data or maps without any or without adequate CC-BY-SA attribution and they take several weeks to fix on average. These are mostly websites but include poster advertising, a TV advertisement and a TV show. This has sort of landed in the LWG's lap by default but we feel we are not dealing with the issues adequately and some issues not at all. We welcome suggestions on a better system. Our main function is the internal license change, and until that is done, we really don't have the resource to handle external matters like this. Here's a run down of what happens at the moment: - At the very minimum, we want to keep make a public record of alleged violations to show that these things do not pass un-noticed and to provide a central point for collating frequency and the nature of the problem. So far, if the LWG hears a report, we document the basics in a Hall of Shame section of our weekly meeting minutes, http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes - A member of the OSMF board or LWG takes up the particular issue. This depends very much on personal enthusiasm. It requires initial tact - most instances are neglect/cannot be bothered rather than purely wilful. It requires persistance and follow-up, - we generally get an oh we will fix it immediately ... and then they don't. It requires careful coordination within the OSM/OSMF community to provide a united front. It may require research - for example, how exactly should a TV ad provide a CC-BY-SA atttibution? And lastly, future cases may involve bumping up to formal legal help and legal action. Not easy for one person to do. Mike LWG ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributor terms (was : decision removing data:
At 01:14 13/08/2010, Liz wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote: At 02:58 PM 12/08/2010, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal review from OSMF's lawyers... Yes. Our initial desire was to have something very short, more in-line with what is now the summary [1] but they were re-written professionally ... and came back, well, much longer. We then worked compressing it to the minimum and had each small change explicitly reviewed. A number of changes were also proposed by kind folks on this list and were subjected to the same review. Mike [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary the output you get from a lawyer is dependent on the input so you ask a question and the lawyer answers that question. we can't decide anything about the lawyer's contributions unless we know what the original questions were. Drafts are available at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes . Look for Licensing Working Group, Contributor Terms (working document, not a final version) However as you are only seeing the last revision per physical document, the earliest appears to be draft 11 ... so does not directly answer the question you are asking. I will dig out the earliest draft I can find in history diffs and publish as a separate document. Note also that we originally intended a very short version that pointed to (drafts of) Database Contents License (DbCL) . You can see the later v1.0 version at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ and that there is a high correspondence of phraseology. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The use of OSM images in a promotional video
Hi Elliot, For me, yes and yes but. I mapped most of central Sydney myself originally and am delighted. Your use clearly indicates two separate layers which the community says is OK, you don't need to share alike the 3D model ... though perhaps you can consider it? As for the credits, please consider putting an attribution in a corner of the map. As long as the credit is on screen long enough to be read, it does not have to remain in view during panning or zooming. With my License Working Group hat on: Under the current CC BY SA license, there is no clear guide as to how attribution should be made. The credit needs to appear in a place reasonable to the medium or means you are utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as you would any other map supplier. A community consensus can be found at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F and we are evolving an OSM Foundation one-stop-shop resource at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License, (feedback on clarity welcome). Best of luck with your project, Mike At 06:01 09/08/2010, Elliot Sumner wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_29DA2EA641F1034AACF370880EE2098CF16122EE7FEXVMBX0154exc_ Hi all - I'm doing an animation for a promotional corporate video, including an animated 3D model of Sydney, which I'd like to overlay with the OSM map of Sydney. Presumably this is ok as long as I include the appropriate accreditation in the credits - could someone please clarify for me? The video would be out in the wild (youtube etc.) and would be used as a promotional tool for our company (Seeker Wireless). We provide mobile phone location technology, I'd be illustrating the geographic location of people using Seeker Wireless products. Thanks -Elliot ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] (Not) Removing data
I have been away from the grand fray for several weeks due to personal matters and have been catching up with threads on this list. One question, I think from Liz, was who decided to remove data. That got me thinking as there was never any explicit decision point. Therefore I have a question which is more moral and ethical than legal at this point. We get a high proportion of data under ODbL and decide to switch over to it. If someone does not accept the new license, (I am really thinking of folks who never respond) and we have reasonable made efforts to reach them, are we really obligated to remove their data from the ODbL live database unless they exert their original copyright and request us to do so? A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views? Precedents? Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] import of dataset for new zealand
At 12:48 PM 3/18/2008, 80n wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sent: 18 March 2008 10:54 AM To: mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.orglegal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] import of dataset for new zealand Robin Paulson wrote: (c) Crown Copyright w00t, Robin found his Shift key! ;) even with 5 of these displayed on screen at any one time in a small but readable font (and of course, they only need to be shown when the data is usable, i.e. not at zoom 0 - 4), a large area of screen will not be needed Better, I think, to stake our standard as being simply OpenStreetMap and others hyperlinked to the attribution page. It's scalable when more datasets come along; fits in better with the image of the project; and imposes no technical burden on those who reuse the data (i.e. they can simply link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/attributionwww.openstreetmap.org/attribution rather than having to dynamically generate a list of imported datasets for the bbox). +1 Like this perhaps? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attributionhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution Can we symbolically link that to http://www.openstreetmap.org/attributionwww.openstreetmap.org/attribution and then put a link to it on the front page to show we have a practical attribution solution and are giving it maximum easy-to-reach prominence? It then just comes down to being careful to give the licensor chance to define what include an attribution statement without forcing them to. I'd suggest Robin emails or writes, writing preferable, a short letter like the following. I had a hot shot lawyer business partner and this is a tactic we often used in general business. Generally, there is no reply and therefore any subsequent objection carries little or no weight. I'd also be happy to send this personally as an OSMF board member if Robin provides contact details and prior contact summary. Thank you for making your xyz data available. We are incorporating it into a worldwide free open mapping project http://www.openstreetmap.org, the purposes of which is described in more detail at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org. In order to give maximum permanent attribution as per your license terms, we have placed an attribution here at http://www.openstreetmap.org/attribution. If you have any objections or questions about such usage, please feel free to write to us by x, 2008, after which we will assume we are meeting your terms satisfactorily. This approach has worked successfully in the Philippines for OSM, even sending the letter registered post. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
