Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How do I join the meeting tonight?

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Dec 10, 2020, 18:32 by bainton@gmail.com:

> though can't see how to set up Push to Talk
>
big blue cog => audio input tab (selected by default) -> Transmission panel

Change dropdown from "voice activity" to "Push to talk"

Seems that it should work

> The > wiki >  has a HOT server 
> listed, but LWG isn't part of HOT? (See below sig)
>
It is a bit confusing, but yes - HOT server, OSMF group,
License Working Group (LWG) channel

Disclaimer: I am not experienced and it is possibly that something may be wrong
in my text.

If you join we can test whatever it works.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Dec 2, 2020, 09:49 by nickw4...@gmail.com:

> I have contacted the company asking them if it was OK to delete their 
> panoramas (as the content is arguably 'inappropritate' for a walking-oriented 
> site) nd they replied to me, in a friendly and cooperative way, saying they 
> would setup their own 'local' OpenTrailView server by November 13th. I since 
> contacted them to confirm whether they had done this (twice) but have not 
> heard back.
>
> With this in mind, given it's my own server (well technically I rent the 
> space from a hosting provider, but you know what i mean) and given I've sent 
> several emails to them, will it be OK legally for me to remove their 
> panoramas?
>
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

As far as I know, you can delete offtopic content from your service.

I routinely delete offtopic content from OSM Telegram channel[1].

Any place on internet allowing submissions must moderate content
or will turn into a garbage dump.

It may be also a good idea to have terms of service reminding that
you can delete anything for any reason whatsoever.

Bonus disclaimer: I can imagine cases where deletions would be 
legally problematic (running into laws about discrimination or
anti-monopoly laws) but I cannot imagine anything applying here.

[1] Typically bitcoin scams spam, but sometimes something
more boderline.

> As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the 
> storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails.
>
Delete if you want. Note that giving warning was not necessary,
as far as I know deletion without warning is completely fine.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data Portal License CC0 1.0 and OpenStreetMap

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

It is likely, but it should be evaluated. I mentioned it because
sometimes people assume "CC0=can be imported" while it is definitely untrue:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0

Nov 6, 2020, 17:47 by pierz...@yahoo.fr:

> 2020-10-06 , Mateusz Konieczny wrote via legal-talk :
>
> > For example Wikidata is CC0 but mostly copyright incompatible with OSM
> > and unusable for imports in general.
>
> If I understand correctly, there is quite a difference in solididy of license 
>  from groups like Wikidata who import data from various sources vs a 
> government agencies that produce their own data.
>
>  
> Pierre 
>
> Le vendredi 6 novembre 2020 11 h 08 min 52 s UTC−5, Mateusz Konieczny via 
> legal-talk  a écrit :
>
>
> See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
>
> "License terms are compatible, but the licenser does not guarantee for it. 
> 4c of the license explicitly states: > "Affirmer disclaims responsibility for 
> clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the Work or any use 
> thereof, 
> including without limitation any person's Copyright and Related Rights in the 
> Work. 
> Further, Affirmer disclaims responsibility for obtaining any necessary 
> consents, 
> permissions or other rights required for any use of the Work."> "
>
> For example Wikidata is CC0 but mostly copyright incompatible with OSM
> and unusable for imports in general.
>
> Nov 6, 2020, 16:48 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
>> Government of Quebec has added the licence CC0 1.0 to his >> 
>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca>>  Data portal >>  for import of datasets and 
>> never returned requests to add specific authorisation for OSM>> . 
>>
>> Looking at the history of discussions, it is not clear for me if the CC0 
>> Public license is compatible with OSM. 
>>
>> Then my question : Does >>  CC0 1.0>>  license make the data compatible with 
>> OpenStreeMap Odbl llicense ?  
>>
>> If so, we will have access to datasets of high quality such as route, 
>> hydrography, address.
>>
>> License in french
>> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/
>>
>> Deepl translation 
>> ---
>> In order to promote collaboration, exchange and sharing, as well as the use 
>> of open data by all, the Government of Quebec and several municipalities 
>> have adopted a common licence, Creative Commons 4.0 (CC), which comes in six 
>> variants.
>>
>> This licence is recognized as one of the least restrictive in terms of the 
>> rights to use open data, while protecting copyright.
>>
>> The universal Creative Commons 1.0 licence (CC0 1.0) can also be used, in 
>> particular to encourage the integration of data into a larger set of open 
>> and linked data, in which the origin of each piece of data can sometimes be 
>> more complex to recognise. 
>> ---
>>
>>  
>> Pierre
>
> ___
> 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] Data Portal License CC0 1.0 and OpenStreetMap

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

"License terms are compatible, but the licenser does not guarantee for it. 
4c of the license explicitly states: "Affirmer disclaims responsibility for 
clearing rights of other persons that may apply to the Work or any use thereof, 
including without limitation any person's Copyright and Related Rights in the 
Work. 
Further, Affirmer disclaims responsibility for obtaining any necessary 
consents, 
permissions or other rights required for any use of the Work.""

For example Wikidata is CC0 but mostly copyright incompatible with OSM
and unusable for imports in general.

Nov 6, 2020, 16:48 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Government of Quebec has added the licence CC0 1.0 to his > 
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca>  Data portal >  for import of datasets and 
> never returned requests to add specific authorisation for OSM> . 
>
> Looking at the history of discussions, it is not clear for me if the CC0 
> Public license is compatible with OSM. 
>
> Then my question : Does >  CC0 1.0>  license make the data compatible with 
> OpenStreeMap Odbl llicense ?  
>
> If so, we will have access to datasets of high quality such as route, 
> hydrography, address.
>
> License in french
> https://www.donneesquebec.ca/fr/licence/
>
> Deepl translation 
> ---
> In order to promote collaboration, exchange and sharing, as well as the use 
> of open data by all, the Government of Quebec and several municipalities have 
> adopted a common licence, Creative Commons 4.0 (CC), which comes in six 
> variants.
>
> This licence is recognized as one of the least restrictive in terms of the 
> rights to use open data, while protecting copyright.
>
> The universal Creative Commons 1.0 licence (CC0 1.0) can also be used, in 
> particular to encourage the integration of data into a larger set of open and 
> linked data, in which the origin of each piece of data can sometimes be more 
> complex to recognise. 
> ---
>
>  
> Pierre 

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Is 

"it is good enough for us to be named as the data owner here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Kartverket_.28Norwegian_Mapping_Authority.29
 "
(see http://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/kart/2014-August/004831.html for the 
original text)
sufficient to solve problems of CC BY 4.0?

As I understand CC BY 4.0 requires waiver for DRM related reasons, and that it 
would not
be sufficient.

For context see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Import/Catalogue/Road_import_(Norway)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import licensing waiver

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

But license is still needed, right?

Or is it OK to interpret "Agency has no objections"
as "sounds like CC0" (I would not do this but maybe...)?


Oct 9, 2020, 20:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>  
>>  I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
>>  Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
>>  building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
>>  layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
>>  contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
>>  the lines of
>>  >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
>>  ), I received this response:
>>  
>>  The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
>>  geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
>>  layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
>>  database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
>>  however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
>>  claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
>>  building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
>>  for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
>>  there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose. 
>>  Your use of the data is at your own risk. 
>>  
>>  Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  ___
>>  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] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Sep 23, 2020, 15:16 by gi...@gmx.de:

> On 09/23/2020 at 01:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:
>>
>>> (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
>> include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour."
>> (section 3.0)
>>
>
> Right, assuming. ;-) Please, do not get me wrong, I am okay with profit.
> However, only as long as it is legal.
>
Fortunately, it is :)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Sep 23, 2020, 12:18 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link 
>> or
>> something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an 
>> automated
>> feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one of
>> their channels.
>>
> For completeness, this discussion spun out of one at > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90157565>  which in turn spun off 
> from > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987>  .
>
GITNE, I am not sure what you were trying to achieve - but you certainly 
managed to
make comments  that you should not make* are far more visible that they would 
be 
otherwise.

Simply please stop making such comments.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect


*
"Again, stop doing this shit!",

"Hurray, you have found the Wiki and started reading it! Well, I guess after 
all you
have successfully made progress."

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Sep 22, 2020, 23:43 by gi...@gmx.de:

> Hello OSMF Legal Team,
>
> due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset comments 
> are
> automatically republished by the third party private company Slack, I would
> appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this situation. More
> specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and which 
> OSMF
> document or agreement covers changeset comments?
>
> As far as I can tell no document covers changeset comments either explicitly 
> nor
> implicitly. The Contributor Terms state that “…contributing data and/or any
> other content (collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the
> OpenStreetMap project (the “Project”)” is explicitly limited to contributions 
> to
> the geo-database (map database). As far as I can tell changeset comments are 
> not
> part of the OSM's geo-database.
>
As far as I can tell changeset comments are part of the OSM's geo-database.

"Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content
(collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project 
(the “Project”)"

And yes, "any other content" clearly includes changeset description, notes,
note comments, changeset comments and so on.

Though I am unsure about status of anonymous notes, formerly possible
anonymous note comments and about user diary entries.

note: I am not a lawyer
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is "Licence Ouverte v2.0" OdbL compatible?

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Sep 21, 2020, 03:59 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Hello,
> In New Caledonia we have some geo data available
> https://data.gouv.nc/explore/?disjunctive.theme=explore.popularity_score
>
> The Licence of some of them is "Licence Ouverte v2.0"
> https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ETALAB-Licence-Ouverte-v2.0.pdf
>
> As far as I can guess, this licence seems to be free enough to be
> OpenStreetMap OdbL compatible.
>
Is there English text if license available somewhere?

I am not a lawyer, I looked only at Google translate but it
seems to be compatible.

Again: I am not a lawyer, I looked only at Google translate

And that is why creating your own license is stupid: you 
should use existing one.

>
> Others are in "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0", "CC BY-NC-ND 4.0", "CC BY-ND 4.0", "CC
> BY-NC 4.0" or "CC BY-SA 4.0",,are not OdbL compatible, I think.
>
> Can someone with more knowledge than I confirm this?
>

"CC BY-NC-SA 4.0", "CC BY-NC-ND 4.0", "CC BY-ND 4.0", "CC BY-NC 4.0"
are completely unsuitable - importing into OSM would create a derivative work
(or later edits would do this), what is forbidden by ND (no derivative works),
NC (no commercial use) is fundamentally incompatible with ODBL
allowing also commercial use

Data under a CC-BY 4.0 licence can become compatible with OSM,
after some boilerplate waiver has been signed

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
pointing to https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

(I also added part of earlier message onto that Wiki page
as I am basically 100% sure that it is correct)

>
> Thank you
>
> Hendrik Oesterlin
> New Caledonia
>
> ___
> 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] Disclaimer regarding data in Virginia (US)?

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Jul 20, 2020, 20:35 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:

> OSM surely incorporates data in Virginia which was not prepared by suitably 
> licensed entities (per 
> https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter4/section54.1-402/).
>
> According to Virginia law, OSM must therefore display the following notice:
>
>> Any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of
>> physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general
>> information only and shall not be used for the design, modification,
>> or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain
>> determination.
>>
> Is this notice already displayed somewhere? If not, where should it be 
> displayed?
>
Not a lawyer, but...

(1) https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/54.1-402/ is a better link

Note 
"preparing documentation pursuant to subsection C of § 54.1-402 
 shall note the following"

So this disclaimer is necessary not for all maps, but only ones used in 
documentation
intended for a specific purposes.

So probably this disclaimer is not necessary on typical OSM based maps.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

14 Jul 2020, 14:54 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 12:40, Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Such data is incompatible with
>> OSM requirements, must not be
>> imported, must be removed as
>> copyright violation if added already.
>>
>
>
> on the plus side there is a declaration of the license steward that the 
> license is compatible with the ODbL.
>
Maybe they assume that it is covered
anyway by moral rights?

But ODBL waives moral rights if allowed
by law,
it attempts to block asserting such claims,
and so on.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer etc___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

14 Jul 2020, 11:37 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> Can we guarantee that the contained information is not "misrepresented"?
>
No. ODBL has no such restrictions.

Therefore OSM data can be used in 
several evil or non-evil ways
that would violate such clauses.

Such data is incompatible with
OSM requirements, must not be
imported, must be removed as
copyright violation if added already.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Jun 17, 2020, 10:19 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 16:00 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk 
> <> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>>
>> I opened deletion request for one of items at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q76939332
>> and notified the author
>>
>
>
> thank you for taking action, I guess this may be a good way to raise 
> awareness, although ultimately I would prefer improving / fixing the 
> attribution and keeping the data rather than removing it. 
>
Though in such case they really should make clear that Wikidata dataset may be
burdened by additional licenses and describe how one may check whatever
given item has additional copyright and copyright-like restrictions.

Again, compare
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse
with
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Reuse (empty page, I have not found
any similar page via search)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Jun 16, 2020, 13:13 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> I have noticed that people have been importing OSM data into wikidata. 
>
It appears to be against advise of Wikimedia Foundation advise.

See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights

> Whenever possible, the best course is to use only content that is made
> available by the author under an open license. In particular, for EU
> databases, the license should include a license or express waiver of
> the sui generis database right. In the absence of a license, copying
> all or a substantial part of a protected database should be avoided.
> Extraction and use of data should be kept to a minimum and limited to
> unprotected material, such as uncopyrightable facts and short phrases,
> rather than extensive text. For EU databases, bots or other automated
> ways of extracting data should also be avoided because of the
> Directive’s prohibition on “repeated and systematic extraction” of
> even insubstantial amounts of data.

Though in general approach of Wikidata is to ignore copyright, unlike
OSM or Wikimedia Commons.

Compare 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Copyright
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Copyright
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright

Common comment is "we are copying facts, facts are not copyrightable"
what may be or may be not describing such editing in case of USA legal framework


> Here are some examples:
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76939332
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76951022
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76972551
>
> This is a link that someone helpful has provided in the user talk page of the 
> wikidata user:
> https://query.wikidata.org/#%23defaultView%3AMap%0Aselect%20%3Fitem%20%3Fcoordinates%20where%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Fitem%20p%3AP625%2Fprov%3AwasDerivedFrom%2Fpr%3AP248%20wd%3AQ1224853%3B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20wdt%3AP625%20%3Fcoordinates.%0A%7D
>
> I believe the attribution is not sufficient (following the "described at URL" 
> link there is OSM and mapbox attribution)?
>
> Provided that ODbL and OpenStreetMap would be sufficiently linked, is it then 
> possible to copy OSM data into wikidata, which is distributed as CC0?
>
AFAIK not sufficient, ODBL is a copyleft ("share alike") license, so it would 
be necessary to add
also that data is ODBL licensed.

I opened deletion request for one of items at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q76939332
and notified the author

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal regulation of the use of OSM data

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Not a lawyer, but I will try to answer obvious ones.

Mar 12, 2020, 16:54 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Hello, everybody!
>  
> Please deal with the issue of legal regulation of OSM data.
>  
> If we collect data from your API in XML format or perhaps directly from the 
> front of the API in JSON format (is there any difference in this situation?).
>
No, there is no difference as far as copyright is concerned.

>  The final format for displaying data is the pins of organizations in the 
> custom (our) design, which we place on a third-party map, with the ability to 
> do so under license. Users can find out what type of organization and what 
> kind of organization, filter organizations on the map, i.e., for example, 
> view only hospitals. We assume to take and reflect on the map only socially 
> significant objects on the map - schools, kindergartens, sports institutions, 
> hospitals and shops (a fairly small number of objects). Is this obvious 
> limits to the usefulness?
>
"Is this obvious limits to the usefulness?" - not sure what kind of legal 
question is asked here.

>  
> If we allow to use the specified data on our site, which we put on a map, and 
> under the terms of the purpose is not to extract the data, but only for the 
> user to see these data, i.e. the goal is to bring it to the end user as shown 
> in the example with Garmin maps on the site at the link>  > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline>
>   > and it says it's Produced Work. In our situation, is this also a Produced 
> Work?
>
Not a lawyer, so not sure about usefulness of my advise here. (feel free to 
replay asking me to answer and
I will do this but..)

> And I would like to clarify about attribution. The guideline states that we 
> should indicate that we are contributors and provide a link to distribution 
> under the ODbL license, on the other hand, for Produced Work in clause 4.3. 
> license ODbL is written a little differently and that is not consistent with 
> the logic written in guidline. 
>
What exactly is the problem?

> Based on this, the question arises whether it is enough that we specify that 
> the map simply contains information from the OSM as indicated at the 
> beginning of paragraph 4.3?
>
Visible text indicating that markers are from OSM is certainly necessary.

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