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
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
2013/8/29 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com Their is clear and full understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM is made available under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. This is stated on their website at https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx(Description tab). Data cc-by-sa by OpenStreetMap ;-) Maybe you could drop them a hint, as they seem to be pulling tiles from osmf servers that should be (c) osm contributors cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Mikel I believe there is a simple solution, please document the source with the full text of the licence or with a statement by the lawyer in question, since the later is unlikely to forthcoming (we probably wouldn't do that either), its going to be the former. I find it quite understandable that their is some uneasiness about agreeing adhere to a licence that we can't actually read. Simon Am 29.08.2013 15:16, schrieb Mikel Maron: 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] 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.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi,
i think Richard points to the right direction.
Richard Weait writes:
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.
i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of
humanitarian aid and should only be used in this context.
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.
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.
That way it's clear to OSM contributors as well as to data donors what is
going to happen.
if an imagery provider would not like the above sentence He wouldn't like
the current situation either and might cause trouble later. So it wouldn't
change anything and add more clarity to the process.
Stephan
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi All, I think that lawyers from the provider of the license interpreting the license as okay for use in OSM is no issue. Josh Campbell above is the lead for the project. Currently this project is up for an award, it is not putting the database at risk. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of humanitarian aid and should only be used in this context. 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. Best, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
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. The legal interpretation by the US government lawyers of their own license was that the initial use of the imagery needed to be for humanitarian use, but it was fine for there also to be commercial use. So basically they can't give the OSM community the imagery to digitize for an initially commercial reason, but the vectors can stay in OSM under ODbL no problem beyond that. -Kate (1) https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed Not understanding what the definition of LIDP is makes it so difficult for me to understand the license. Martin replied earlier and he did interpret it as not suitable for OSM. You can't really interpret part of a license. LIDP is probably a term defined elsewhere. I doubt a tracing is a LIDP, on the other hand, I don't see permission for non-literal imagery derived products (IDPs). Can you provide the full license so that we can see what the classify tracings as? Unfortunately that was all license text available. It comes from HOT context. I noticed that a lot of imagery and data available for that humanitarian context comes with a clear non-commercial clause. I checked the HOT tasking manager and the license presented to users can be found at http://tasks.hotosm.org/license/1 (OSM OAuth signin required) but the usage terms refer to the NextView (NV) License) and it's not clear if that's the same as the usage terms. I've cc'ed hot@ because they should be able clear up these confusions. ___ 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
