Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
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
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
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
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
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] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: +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. The last sentence should be: Definitely a scenario where we as MapBox would _love to_ 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 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
And this is where SA gets really hairy. It's entirely possible and actually quite common that part of a database that contains private data is public. E. g. public facing web sites that are powered from a Salesforce DB through a private API. Again, we need real-world examples. Working on this. On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: 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 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: And this is where SA gets really hairy. It's entirely possible and actually quite common that part of a database that contains private data is public. E. g. public facing web sites that are powered from a Salesforce DB through a private API. Again, we need real-world examples. Working on this. Please take note that the legal term database* is different from the technical term database. Just because one website's data is in just one PostgreSQL or MySQL database doesn't mean that this whole database needs to be licensed under ODbL. * According to the European Database Directive, a database is a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. ___ 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
2012/10/24 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still enforce the database rights. So a statement by the contributors (e.g. on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to the end user. what the end user could do: approach the contributor that made the PD declaration and ask them to give them the data they contributed under PD conditions ;-). Not sure but I guess this might be only possible if the user had stored a local copy of the data. If the original contributor got his (own) data from the OSMF-servers it would probably be under ODbL even if he himself had contributed it and given only a non-exclusive license to OSMF. From a practical point of view I think it would be difficult to determine whether the data was copied from the OSMF servers of from a local copy though. cheers, Martin ___ 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
On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:37 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still enforce the database rights. So a statement by the contributors (e.g. on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to the end user. Right, there needs to be confirmation by the OSMF. Cheers ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US A related question is whether any agreement like that can be made within the Contributor Terms. With the thread about the Public Domain OSM subset when someone said that the PD declaration had no real meaning I asked myself what made that declaration different from other license grants (I'm still not sure). But a license, according to Wikipedia, is an agreement not to sue under some conditions. An agreement not to sue under some conditions is a license. But the OSMF is bound by the Contributor Terms to only grant a subset of the two licenses listed in the CT, in their specific versions. So can it make a statement declaring that it would not sue under some conditions (e.g. use of the results of geocoding) and keep publishing data from current contributions? The OSMF could state that they won't sue under certain conditions and then someone could use that statement if later sued by the OSMF. I can't recall the name of the legal principle off-hand, but an appropriately worded statement by the OSMF would be binding on them. The decision to sue by the OSMF is discretionary and they would be stating that they were going to use their discretion in some cases and not sue. This would not be a copyright/database license. Most importantly, it would not prevent a contributor from suing on their own. It can probably state that it understands the ODbL 1.0 license to allow users to do this and that under given conditions, or to not *apply* under some conditions in some jurisdiction (for example in USA). The OSMF could write opinions but they would only have any value if the court found part of the ODbL ambiguous. The court's idea of ambiguous could be quite different from the communities. But this could also be abused by declaring something that is in contrast with what OSM contributors think, an extreme case being a statement that says that ODbL is effectively invalid, or that ODbL = PDDL. That could perhaps be treated as an agreement not to sue, i.e. license. I am not persuaded that a statement like this is a copyright or database license. So what kind of clarifications (if any) can the OSMF make about the licenses? The problem is the same as human-readable versions of licenses. They aren't authoritative, and in case of a disagreement with the license text aren't worth anything. As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still enforce the database rights. So a statement by the contributors (e.g. on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to the end user. Not living somewhere where there are database rights, I'm not sure of this, but if a contributor uploads a database to OSM (i.e. a .osm file) and then independently grants the rights to someone else, can that other person then download the database from OSM, remove all other contributions and use it under the grant from the contributor? For copyright the answer is a pretty clear yes. It's worth noting that the remove all other contributions step is not trivial. Even a changeset from a contributor is not generally exclusively their contributions if they have used any existing data. This is why I don't think a PD declaration from a user, even if legally binding, is of any practical use. To use it you'd have to remove the contributions of other users from their uploads and that requires a full history database for the area ___ 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
Hi Frederik, On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/23/12 01:24, Alex Barth wrote: Another question that we could ask to enlighten us is: What do commercial geocoding providers usually allow you to do once you have paid them? When you geocode a dataset with TomTom data and you pay them for that, do TomTom then still claim any rights about your resulting database, or do they say, like you sketched above, that their license does not extend to the geocoded dataset? I think we need to separate the geocoding engine from the data to answer this question. I worked for a company where we had geocoded a huge amount of data (millions and millions of records) with one street dataset. The dataset began to be too expensive and we looked for another source. When we switched datasources we had to regeocoded all the records because the original geocodes were derived from the original commercial data source. So essentially it was the lat/lons that were associated with the original data, but not the address data we had input. I'm unsure what would have happened to the corrected addresses the geocoder fed back. We would have fed in the original data again. -Kate 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] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
Hi, On 23 October 2012 11:44, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: ... During the license change discussion, my position was often this: Instead of trying to codify everything in watertight legalese, let's just make the data PD and write a human-readable moral contract that lists things we *expect* users to do, but don't *enforce*. - Maybe the same can be done with geocoding; we could agree on making no legal request for opening up any geodata, but at the same time make it very clear that we would consider it shameful for someone to exploit this in order to build any kind of improved geocoding without sharing back. A related question is whether any agreement like that can be made within the Contributor Terms. With the thread about the Public Domain OSM subset when someone said that the PD declaration had no real meaning I asked myself what made that declaration different from other license grants (I'm still not sure). But a license, according to Wikipedia, is an agreement not to sue under some conditions. An agreement not to sue under some conditions is a license. But the OSMF is bound by the Contributor Terms to only grant a subset of the two licenses listed in the CT, in their specific versions. So can it make a statement declaring that it would not sue under some conditions (e.g. use of the results of geocoding) and keep publishing data from current contributions? It can probably state that it understands the ODbL 1.0 license to allow users to do this and that under given conditions, or to not *apply* under some conditions in some jurisdiction (for example in USA). But this could also be abused by declaring something that is in contrast with what OSM contributors think, an extreme case being a statement that says that ODbL is effectively invalid, or that ODbL = PDDL. That could perhaps be treated as an agreement not to sue, i.e. license. So what kind of clarifications (if any) can the OSMF make about the licenses? As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still enforce the database rights. So a statement by the contributors (e.g. on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to the end user. Cheers ___ 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
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:25 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US Fair point. Still - I would ask what is the purpose of this protection and how does it benefit OSM on this particular level? OSM clearly benefits of being used. The usage of OSM data in maps has been clarified, I believe the ability to unencumberedly leverage OSM data to create produced works is a huge benefit for OpenStreetMap as a whole as it creates more versatile map styles, (and yes, abilities to monetize them) and in turn have more map users and thousands of micro incentives of improving our common map. Important similar incentives are routing or geo coding. The latter is where I think the shoe starts to hurt. In my mind there's much to be gained by giving better incentives to contribute to OSM by clarifying the geocoding situation and little to be lost by allowing narrow extracts of OSM. I believe we can do this within the letter of the ODbL and within the spirit of why the ODbL was adopted. Well, by using a share-alike license you are rejecting some uses, just like if you use LGPL with a library. The issue is that a library has clear interfaces and there is more extensive case law about what is protected by copyright whereas the case law and precedents are unclear for geodata. Where I see the license as trying to prohibit is mixing OSM + other data and then marketing it as OSM, but better without sharing the other data. You could be confident that commercial geodata providers would like to do this for the road network, where they may have poor coverage in areas that OSM has good coverage. When our address data gets good enough in areas where they have poor coverage, you can bet they'll look for any ways to do the same. BTW, I don't want to know how many people out there have used Nominatim for geocoding without having any idea... Well, for most of the world they're likely fine. I cannot imagine local courts holding any copyright protection to apply to the output of Nominatim and I expect they would see the contact provisions (if enforceable) to apply to the operator of the server, not to the person using it. Of course the same is likely to apply to anyone offering a geocoder based on data from a commercial data provider. The lesson for this? When seeking to enforce your rights on geodata that covers the world, pick the right country to do so in. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
