[OSM-legal-talk] update to mailing list description (was use OSM data to select proprietary data)
On Monday, December 16, 2019, 07:35:08 AM EST, Simon Poole wrote: > Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly accessible >mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions however unfounded >they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you got a cacophony of >conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you should have expected. Looks like this was clear to the poster, but I don't think it would necessarily be clear to a random person joining the list. Suggest we modify the list description on https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk to "The list for discussion of all legal matters relating to Openstreetmap, including licensing and copyright. For official information on the license from the OSM Foundation, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence; * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Skybox for Good imagery
Hey A few notes from talking this through with Josh * Requests for SkyBox imagery would go through the usual HOT imagery coordination process http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOT_activation#Imagery_Coordination* Use of SkyBox imagery for HOT activations would be coordinated through tasking manager projects.* The listing of all SkyBox for good requests is at https://mapsengine.google.com/00979750194450688595-08887688179650036554-4/mapview/?authuser=0. We'd go through the coordination processes above, if a HOT activation wanted to use existing imagery.* At the moment, there is no tile service. HOT would need to set up tiles from a downloaded GeoTIFF. Hope that clears things up. Btw, would be good to simply set up a test with one of the SkyBox for good GeoTIFFs, to see how it compares with Bing georeferencing and resolution. BestMikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:34 AM, Pierre Béland pierz...@yahoo.fr wrote: These are great news for HOT Activations. In the context of the Ebola outbreak, we have large territories to cover in West Africa. There are various areas not yet well covered with high-res imagery. With the sudden resurgence in various areas, we have to try to find rapidly imagery. Imagery could be also helpful to do some prevention mapping in areas at risk, with limitroph regions having a spread of the epidemy. There are areas in east Guinea and West Ivory Coast with no high-res imagery. We have the capacity to mount a tms server. If there are Skymap imagery archives, What would help us is to have access to a catalog of metadata for this imagery and a protocol to request for imagery. regard Pierre De : Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz À : Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com; Pat Tressel ptres...@myuw.net Cc : hot h...@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Samedi 22 novembre 2014 2h52 Objet : Re: [HOT] Skybox for Good imagery Hi Satoshi, Yes. My fault for delaying this but now done. Hence Josh' announcement. I am happy that: - The provider is aware of what we will do with their imagery and data derived from it. - The provider has given their explicit permission to include derived data into the OSM database. - The proposed attribution mechanism, adding source to tags and/or change sets is practical, (the imagery will only be released in the context of HOT projects). I have also added a new section for HOT under http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution . Mike LWG On 22/11/2014 01:15, Satoshi IIDA wrote: Hello, As my understanding, using Skybox imagery is a task for LWG currently. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-October/071318.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-October/071320.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-October/071295.html Are there any progress since the discussion? 2014-11-22 8:43 GMT+09:00 Pat Tressel ptres...@myuw.net: Josh -- As some of you may be aware, we recently announced the Skybox for Good program. We know that some of this imagery can be especially useful in Crisis Response situations, and therefore we are explicitly authorizing usage of Skybox for Good imagery in any current HOT Activation, under the condition that changesets and/or features that are derived from Skybox for Good imagery and committed to OSM are attributed to Skybox. That's fantastic news!! Ok, folks, who gets to send the formal Thank You? I bet that's the communications working group. And I also bet it's safe to infer a whole bunch of individual thank-yous. ;-) This could, for example, include the method of attributing Skybox as the source, or a similar method deemed appropriate by HOT. We had that older thread about imagery tagging, where it came down to source (used since forever) and the new, automatically-added imagery_used tag in iD, which, it was pointed out, might not be accurate if the user switches imagery temporarily -- would have to see what iD does in that case. One thought -- maybe it would be good to add imagery_used in JOSM with the same behavior as iD, just so they're consistent. We'd keep adding source, but imagery_used would be there as a fallback. Task validators can also check for a source tag, since a task usually specifies a set of imagery. -- Pat ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
[OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hello A few days ago I commented But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.) I have subsequently read this comment from Simon Poole, which seems to address my comment in some loose form, but not directly. And I must admit, it has only confused me further. From a LWG pov I believe the process we are trying to go through is: looking at some real life use cases, determine how to model best the workings of the ODbL in these and whatthe consequences and effects on third party data are. Staying within the spirit of the licence and hearing arguments from the stakeholders in doing so. That is very different from asking us, or a lawyer: this is the desired outcome, please figure out a way to make some arguments that support it. The former, if you so will, is similar to proceedings of a court, and the result is case law, the later is more a lawyer arguing the case in front of the bench. If it is the understanding of the OSM Foundation, that the Legal Working Group in some ways functions like a Court, then there are several issues to raise about the separation of concerns, checks and balances if you will, in this process as we've witnessed it. * How is the composition of the Legal Working Group formed? * Is anyone on the LWG able to sit in judgement? * Does the LWG itself consult with legal counsel when trying cases? Are there any lawyers on the LWG? * How is the spirit of the license determined? Is this the consensus opinion of the LWG? Voted opinion of the Board? Polled opinion of OSMF members? * How are the broad range of opinions regarding intention of the ODbL balanced within the spirit of the license? * The OSMF itself has repeated asked lawyers to help us reach a desired outcome over the years, the result of which was the ODbL. Why did the OSMF have a desired outcome previously, but no longer has one regarding Geocoding? * Do the OSMF officers in this discussion have a desired outcome regarding Geocoding, and does that prejudice their judgement when trying this use case? * How can we manage conflict of interest in the process of deciding on ODbL use cases? Again, I think the OSMF would best serve the OSM community by considering the governance questions above, and bringing clarity and fairness to the process. Sincerely Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another means in which to capture this spirit, I would support that as well. As a former OSMF Board member and a member of the OSM community for 9 years, I believe my voice should carry weight in this discussion. Other current and former Board members, and prominent members of the OSM community, have also lent their weighty voices to this discussion. That's excellent, this is the purpose of legal-talk, it has been very enlightening on this issue. But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.) The OpenStreetMap Foundation, famously, supports but does not control the OpenStreetMap project. In this situation, I believe this would mean devising a governance structure to help answer such questions, and request that the OSMF in one form or another prioritize this issue. I hope that such can take shape soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and finally resolved. Sincerely Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:04 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Consider a chain retailer's database of store locations with store names and addresses (street, house number, ZIP, state/province, country). The addresses are used to search corresponding latitude / longitude coordinates in OpenStreetMap. The coordinates are stored next to the store locations in the store database (forward Geocoding). OpenStreetMap.org's Nominatim based geocoder is used. The store locations are being exposed to the public on a store locator map using Bing maps. The geocoded store locations database remains fully proprietary to the chain retailer. The map carries a notice (c) OpenStreetMap contributors linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what forms a derivative database as part of a collective database. Not following how I can make a Derivative Database from a Produced Work. Once it's a Produced Work it's a Produced Work, right? Sure if I abuse to recreate OSM that's one thing, but at this level? Taking a step back, is the above use case not one we'd like to support without triggering share alike? I'm directing my question to everyone, not just Paul who's taken the time to review my example above. Forward and reverse geocoding existing records is such a huge potential use case for OSM, helping us drive contributions. At the same time it's _the_ use case of OSM where we collide heads on with the realities and messiness of data licensing: Do we really want to make a legal review the hurdle of entry for using OSM for geocoding? Or limit using OSM for geocoding in areas where no one's ever going to sue? How can we get on the same page on how we want geocoding to work and then trace back on how we can fit this into the ODbL? Geocoding should just be possible and frictionless with OSM, no? Shouldn't there be a way to open up OSM to geocoding while maintaining share alike on the whole database? I feel we don't get anywhere by reading the tea leaves of the ODbL - what do we really want for OSM on geocoding? Alex (and yes, when I'm saying geocoding I'm referring to permanent geocoding here, where the geocoding result winds up being stored in someone else's db) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another means in which to capture this spirit, I would support that as well. As a former OSMF Board member and a member of the OSM community for 9 years, I believe my voice should carry weight in this discussion. Other current and former Board members, and prominent members of the OSM community, have also lent their weighty voices to this discussion. That's excellent, this is the purpose of legal-talk, it has been very enlightening on this issue. But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.) The OpenStreetMap Foundation, famously, supports but does not control the OpenStreetMap project. In this situation, I believe this would mean devising a governance structure to help answer such questions, and request that the OSMF in one form or another prioritize this issue. I hope that such can take shape soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and finally resolved. Sincerely Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
This is a solid proposal and has my support. As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse engineering OSM, then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work. What I wonder is how we will move to decision making on the proposal? What's the OSMF process? -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike does not apply to Produced Work, other ODbL stipulations such as attribution do apply. The goal is to remove all uncertainties around geocoding to help make OpenStreetMap truly useful for geocoding and to drive important address and admin polygon contributions to OpenStreetMap. This interpretation is based on what we hear from our lawyers at Mapbox. As this is an interpretation of the ODbL, grey areas remain and therefore, seeing this interpretation adopted as a Community Guideline by the OSMF would be hugely helpful to create more certainty about the consensus around geocoding with OpenStreetMap data. Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline Cheers - Alex [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007547.html ___ 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] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Stephen What happens if they suddenly decide that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor non-commercial? The areas when NextView imagery is made available to HOT/OSM are clearly humanitarian need driven. NextView is a USG license and the interpretation is by their lawyers. Their is clear and full understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM is made available under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. There is not an issue here. So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license: Can we have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and covered by their license? This is stated on their website at https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx (Description tab). If this is still not clear to you Stephen, please contact me directly on Skype (mikelmaron) and I will clear up any confusion. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de To: Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com; Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Cc: OSMF License Working Group le...@osmfoundation.org; hot h...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed Hello Kate, On 29.08.2013 02:24, Kate Chapman wrote: For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to document the permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable way in the wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what a derived imagery product is. I can document in the wiki my understanding of it. The legal interpretation of the US government by their own lawyers that the initial use of the derived vectors need to be for humanitarian use, after that it is fine to remain under the ODbL license in OSM. The reason for this is the US Government-wide license for commercial satellite imagery is not supposed to cut into potential commercial sales of that imagery. So it would not be possible to release that imagery for what would be initially a commercial use. So why not simply add a clause saying Imagery is used by the members of the HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy. Derived data will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after end of the humanitarian project. The NextView license is the US Government-wide license utilized for commercial satellite imagery. It is not going to be possible to add a clause to it. I appreciate your work for HOT and like the idea that OSM data is used to really improve the situation of people. However, reading this it sounds to me we (as OSM) fully rely on the legal interpretation of USG lawyers of what use of derived vectors is allowed. What happens if a year after providing the imagery they realize that there are companies selling processed data based on OSM and this data is based on imagery released for HOT. What happens if they suddenly decide that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor non-commercial? Would we have to revert large scale of date and all additions built on top of it? I'm much in favor of having the data donor fully understand of what are the consequences of their donation. So they can agree to that and not feel tricked into something later. And the OSM community can build their improvements on a solid foundation. So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license: Can we have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and covered by their license? Should be not problem at all if they understood it in the beginning... If they have issues about handing out a letter confirming commercial use of OSM data derived from their imagery being fine then we can't accept their imagery either. I understand that you probably interpret the license in favor for HOT, but if this is tainting the data in OSM we have to find a different solution for HOT - wost case keeping this data separate. To make it fully clear: I'm not talking about the imagery. I'm talking about the vector data derived from the imagery. It is absolutely fine if the imagery is only available to members of the HOT and they use it only for the humanitarian case for which they had been provided, after completion of the job the imagery can be removed again. But the vector data has to be available for OSM under the regulations of our contributor terms. Meaning available as ODbL or any other license we might switch to in the future. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Nice idea, but OSM doesn't operate like that. If someone imports data, they
don't usually ask for the legal opinion of the OSMF or invite an OSMF
representative to a meeting. They just make sure the negotiated terms conforms
to the understanding of the ODbL, etc, invite community input, and then if all
seems ok, do it. Not to say, I wouldn't love to see an active and responsive
LWG that could provide guidance and help, but the OSMF just isn't operating at
that level. And in this specific case, there's really no issue to be concerned
about.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
To: Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com; OSMF License Working Group
le...@osmfoundation.org
Cc: hot h...@openstreetmap.org; Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: [HOT] [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
Hi All,
This has come up before. HOT is part of a pilot for the initiative
Imagery to the Crowd (1). Representatives of HOT and the US
Government met multiple times in all day meetings to discuss what the
NextView license means as well as to have the vectors available under
ODbL.
You make it sound like nobody involved had permission to speak for the
OpenStreetMap Foundation. The Foundation and project would
potentially be put at risk by a failure in interpretation. I'd expect
LWG (at minimum, with Foundation legal representation and Board
oversight) would have to be involved for any such meeting. Otherwise,
you've got n-parties at a table making decisions for a party not
present.
Were any potential data donor, or imagery donor in this case, able to
state, I grant use of {dataset} to OpenStreetMap contributors for use
under the terms of the OpenStreetMap License and Contributor Terms,
well that might be a useful shortcut.
___
HOT mailing list
h...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. That may be an appearance, but it is not true. Actually, you should be fine, this is a very common use case. There are some details, but when making tiles, as long as they are only rendered together, not put together in a single database, there's no share-alike. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_3:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_my_own_data I agree this isn't clear. Confusion is certainly an issue with ODbL. Alex's issue with geocoding is different. I agree, we need to take a serious look at this, and have it clarified. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Rob smartt...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map +1 +1 +1 Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from moving forward with OSM. Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an option. Currently there seems to be no limit to what OSM could claim rights to under the share-alike clause. It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. Rob Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Marc Regan marcre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty terrifying. Instead of rallying around the community and getting excited about improving OSM, you instead spend time looking at alternatives and trying to find lawyers who are experts in software licensing who you can afford to talk to. The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high. -- Marc Regan On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alex Barth wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. ___ 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 ___ 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] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There is some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding services. There's something to explain, but there's something to explain with OSM anyhow. OSM is open for geocoding, that can be worked out. I don't see the other side of the argument here yet, why sharing back only geocoded strings is a problem. I disagree that reverse-geocoding infects an entire database. That needs some clarification. Google's geocoding terms are not even defined, and it's likely legally than anything significantly geocoded using GMaps is property of Google. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US I'd hate to see us give up here, there is too much at stake. The open questions around geocoding are doing OSM a disservice just as CC-BY-SA did. This is from a commercial community member's perspective just as an individual's, assuming we all want a better open map. Opening OSM to geocoding would be one of the main drivers for getting better boundary data and better addresses. Depending on your read of the license, right now OSM's terms on geocoding are potentially stricter than Google's or Navteq's. I'd love to work with whoever is interested on wording a clarification statement and figuring out the process on how to decide on it. On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: I personally can't see enough wiggle room both in the ODbL and the CTs to make any dataset generated by geocoding and/or reverse geocoding anything else than a derivative database. It is just the ODbL working as intended. We went through a lot of effort to get from a broken to a functional licence that is appropriate for the subject matter and we shouldn't be unhappy with the fact that our licence now works (even though I like many others, would have preferred a more liberal licence). We don't have any exact information on the position of the community, but I would suspect that we have substantial support for strong share a like provisions and that getting a 2/3 majority for relaxed terms would be big challenge (I would like to remind everybody that we lost a number of quite large mappers during the licence change process due to the ODbL being a sell out to commercial interests and not SA enough). The only way out that I could see to avoid infection of propriety information is, along the lines of the suggestion by the LWG, to only geocode address information and use the address information as a key to look up such propriety information on the fly, the address DB itself being subject to ODbL terms. This however wouldn't help in the reverse geocoding use case (example: user clicks on a map to locate a bar and we return an address, the dataset of such addresses and any associated information would probably always be tainted). Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ 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] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
geocoding patient data, client data, suppliers data, members data With this kind of sensitive private data, the database would not be redistributed, hence not invoking share-alike. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US +1 for examples. I'm working on pulling some together. The like for like principle overlooks that data submitted to geocoders can be sensitive for privacy or IP reasons. Think of geocoding patient data, client data, suppliers data, members data in a scenario where a geocoder is only used for a single client. Definitely a scenario where we as MapBox would be able to offer an OSM based solution. On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 25.10.2012 17:30, Mikel Maron wrote: I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There is some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding services. +1 - I think we're all (including LWG) still waiting for concrete use case where somebody says: This is how I want to use OSM for geocoding, this is what I believe the ODbL would mean for me, and this is why it is unacceptable for my business. I don't know if it has already been said, but there is a *vast* amount of use cases where we need on-the-fly geocoding - user enters address and is zoomed to location - which are totally unproblematic as no derived database is even created. In many other use cases I can think of, the ODbL's requirement may mean an inconvenience and may mean that users can't be just as secretive as they would like to be, but still sufficiently secretive as not to hurt their business. I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of giving up and too much at stake sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding which in my opinion it clearly isn't! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ 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] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion
Hi It's a pretty hilarious, sensationalizing series of posts. I do give him credit for getting deep into some of the issues and discussions of OSM, more than any other reporter I've seen. But I wouldn't take his zingers any more seriously than good lines at the US pres debates. As for geocoding and ODbL, there is concern over how to interpret ODbL here, and I'm sure some use cases will come up for discussion soon. One option I've thought viable would be sharing of the selected strings used to geocode data, along with the lat/lng obtained from OSM and/or user input. Btw, I was at SOTM-US, but didn't talk to Carl or take part in the ODbL-Geocoding BoF. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:58 AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion Hi, on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part article with SOTM-US coverage, http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/openstreetmap-part-1-new-cartographers.php, and his mention of OSM moving away from his open-source roots. Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously suggested that we move away from open source, it was just a phrase unfortunately reported. I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or personal use. Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL is unlikely to ever be available for no strings attached geocoding; we won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM, but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless. LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in their minutes carry big disclaimers (This is a summary of our discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of position). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the following: To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often proprietary business information or personal information such as a patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does not exist. In the same notes there's a discussion of a like with like principle which means that Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is virally touched, but nothing else. The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_V-anG4wLdwMT4c and explicitly say: To improve it, and test the rationality of the ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and reverse-geocoding. So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG. Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD) license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a share-alike license and I accept that; I don't think that geocode as much as you want without sharing any data is possible with the ODbL data set. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] MoU between OSM and NLSF
Without going into the details of this particular case, I can clarify that OSM Foundation is able to enter (and has entered) into agreements (framed as MoU or otherwise) with government bodies. This has not been for OSM's benefit, but typically because governments sometimes require this kind of thing in order to release data. Such an agreement would never place additional restrictions on the use of the data, beyond that it should be available to use, and only if mappers choose to do so. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.' legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF I'm cautious about quoting Wikipedia especially about anything legal, but it rightly says a MoU is an agreement between two or more parties. An understanding is an agreement. One party is the National Land Survey of Finland, but who is the other party? OSM? What is that? How am I (or more particularly someone adding Finnish data to OSM) to react to this? Who is agreeing to this and how will they be bound to this agreement? If it is not an agreement then it is not an MoU. If the National Land Survey of Finland wants to clarify what their licence means, then they can do that without using an MoU, just issue a statement of clarification. If, however, that gives OSM some extra, special rights then that is a problem. What is to stop someone extracting such data and using it in some other Open dataset outside of OSM which has not received these extra rights? We say OSM data can be used for any purpose by anyone if they comply with CC BY-SA (and soon ODbL), yet any extra restrictions, such as special tags, negates this. The proposed MoU states: OSM are preparing guidelines for all OpenStreetMap data collectors on how to include necessary tag-information for the OpenStreetMap data Are these guidelines binding? If not, what does the 'necessary tag-information' mean? What if someone removes the tags later? This is part of what I mean by tying contributors' hands. The idea that a body issues so-called Open data and we then have to go through some process to add extra paperwork and restriction to OSM before that data can be used in OSM is a dangerous precedent and should be avoided. Get a letter / email saying the National Land Survey of Finland accepts that their open data can be used in OSM if you want, but don't go any further than that. If there is any doubt about this, or any further strings attached, then don't use the data. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly On 04/07/12 08:15, Pekka Sarkola wrote: Chris, Kate, Paul and Jaakko, Thanks about your comments. Here is few re-comments: This is Memorandum of Understanding, not an agreement. I think Wikipedia (again) explains carefully the differences between MoU and an agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding. This could be also Gentlemen's Agreement, maybe. NLSF's Open Data License is more free than OSM licenses (CC-BY-SA or ODBl): http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/NLS_open_data_licence_version1_20120501. Some Finnish OSMers has been worried about last item in sectin 2.2: remove the name of the Licensor from the product or service, if required to do so by the Licensor. and some has been worried about other things in the license. So, this is maybe more for OSMers (OpenStreetMap Foundation, community, contributors and other fellows) to clarify the situation. Signing of the MoU: I thought that this won't be officially signed document. Easier to NLSF, they just can send email. It will be impossible to get signature of OSMers for this MoU. Tying mapper hands: I don't understand this. How? If I (as OSMer) will make guidelines, all necessary mandations is done by all OSMers. Other mappers will follow guideline or not: this just normal procedure in OSM world, right? Dangerous precedent: I don't understand this. I think more and more government data will be open in the future. In some areas it is very valuable to OSMers to benefit those data sources. I hope this will also help other agencies to open their topographic datasets. Did I miss something? Requirements of MoU: I see only one requirement: preparing guideline. I will do that. Do you see other requirements in this MoU for OSMers? Contract: this is not contract, this is Memorandum of Understanding. There is big difference between those. This MoU is more for OSMers than NLSF. As Jaakko mention, this could be titles as License clarification. But this is not license clarification, because we didn't take any lines about licenses into this MoU. NLSF's license is more free than OSM licenses. So, we just need to attribute them in our wiki pages. And this MoU just clarifies that. I pick this title Memorandum of Understanding, because it's widely
[OSM-legal-talk] Import from Ushahidi Libya Instance
You may be aware, UN OCHA has been coordinating a Ushahidi instance to map reports from the the Libya Crisis. http://libyacrisismap.net/. OSM is the base map. They've geocoded about 150 places and POI, and have recruited OSM folks to conflate this list with OpenStreetMap. http://internal.libyacrisismap.net/volunteers/team-geolocation/coordinates-database The issue is that the source for the geocoding is listed, but not always licensed under a license compatible with OSM. Even if locations were derived from non-compatible license sources, my thinking has been that this is non-substantial and non-systematic, and therefore might be permissible to import. Data is only collected based on select needs to geocode reports. The numbers are just over 150. According to the Substantial Guideline of the ODbL, an extract from OSM like this would not trigger the viral terms of the license. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline Question is then twofold. One, we haven't yet adopted the ODbL, so how much could a guideline apply. And two, how does the concept of non-substantial apply to importing data? I think there's a good chance it's ok, in which case all data could be brought in. The alternative would then be to exempt particular POI from conflation, or simply geocode them again using fully clear sources. Thoughts? Mikel == Mikel Maron == +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mapmaker Data for Africa Released
My thoughts on Google MapMaker and OpenStreetMap, from their test release of Kenya in April http://brainoff.com/weblog/2009/04/01/1391 Basically, my reading of this very restrictive license is that it's not only useless for OSM, but for most non-profit uses. -Mikel From: Alexander Menk menk-you.should.remove.this.for.permanent.cont...@mestrona.net To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:32:40 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Mapmaker Data for Africa Released Hi! According to [1], G**gle released the dataset for Africa on [2]. They say, non-profit organizations can use it. Does that include OSM? Alex [1] http://google-africa.blogspot.com/ [2] https://services.google.com/fb/forms/mapmakerdatadownload/ ___ 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] QA with a lawyer
From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org The answer lies in 4.9 (you may not sublicense the database). We often sloppily say that if you make a derived work you must license it under ODbL, but this is not the way ODbL is intended to work. The idea is that the original licensor (OSMF) is the sole licensor throughout the chain of use; and as such, only OSMF has all the rights of the licensor (like defining the list of comptabile licenses). This is very different from CC-BY-SA, where each time you make a derived work and publish that, you are the licensee for upstream content and the licensor for your derived work This *seems* like a big problem in the ODbL, but maybe I misundertand. Is the ODbL non-transitive?? What if another entity, say some National Mapping Agency, licenses their data as ODbL? It appears that if the NMA are the sole licensor, and the ODbL prevents transfer of the rights of sole licensor, then OSM could not assume those rights, and not import the NMA data. -Mikel___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing Working Group report, 2009/01/22
Hi Fredrik Will they be available to process our input after we see the text? Is there any plan for how our feedback will be processed before the public is asked to accept the new license - will it be *our* job to take the lawyers' version and our feedback and make something suitable from it and then ask everyone to sign up, or will we collect our feedback and then again wait for the lawyers to respond? At the same time a first draft of the license is published, a community of users and legal experts will be established for discussion and refinement of the license. We want to move ahead with this draft of the license asap. The license won't be perfect, but there will definitely be a process for feedback and improvements, and the license will get there. In the immediate term, the OSM community kick starts this process by first moving to the first draft of the ODL license. If I find some words in the draft that sound wrong or misleading or unsuitable to me, then if I have details of their deliberations I can decide whether the phrase I dislike is in fact a carefully crafted legal construct that has taken them multiple attempts to get right in a legal sense (in that case I won't even try to touch it), or whether it is just something that was completely overlooked and never even discussed between them (in that case I would perhaps suggest a change). The details of their discussion won't be published. However, there will be ample opportunity for detailed examination and discussion of the further versions. I am also, on a more general level, very interested in getting an insight into the intensity of the exchange. Bluntly spoken, once a draft is produced I want to know whether 100 man-days have gone into that or just 5, which will also influence the respect I (and others) have for the document. A document that is the result of a long and arduous process will command more respect than one produced on a Starbucks napkin ;-) The lawyers are certainly taken this work very seriously. Whether or not the back of any napkins were involved is not something I know about. Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
