Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Simon Poole]

I would have to strongly agree with Robert. Matter of fact my position
is that we have in the past been too lenient in this respect and should
be much more strict going forward matching the growth of OSM and its
usage globally.

Unluckily the situation that IP law tends to be very territorial and OSM
very global (in that any data you have added will be used everywhere)
boils down to really only a small selection of input licences that are
acceptable.

I should note that the LWG hasn't discussed the situation in question
(for lack of being asked for one) and I personally haven't come to a
conclusion yet either.

Simon

Am 28.12.2015 um 11:19 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists):
> On 21 December 2015 at 16:48, Tom Lee  wrote:
>> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
>> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be cleared.
> I have to disagree here. OSM is not just about OSM's own use of the
> data, it is also about providing data to others under a standard
> licence. It is therefore imperative that any data contributed to OSM
> may be used freely by downstream users under the standard OSM licence
> (currently ODbL) without any additional restrictions. The bar that has
> to be cleared is not just that OSM's own use of the data is ok, but
> also everyone else's downstream use under the ODbL will be ok.
>
> I'm not making any comment as to whether the data under discussion
> meets this criterion, but if it's possible for some to take OSM data
> and re-use it under the ODbL and comply with all the ODbL terms, and
> yet still violate the original the terms of the supply, then it's not
> be ok to use that data in OSM.
>
> Robert.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee  wrote:
> Point 1 is simple agreement.
>
> Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
> possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely
> as any).
>
> Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable
> proceeding under the assumption that "it can be clearly identified as LPI
> data" will be a rare occurrence. It is already the case, after all, that OSM
> contains data that cannot be legally used in certain places and/or
> configurations. One example is reverse engineering data from OSM that
> violates a national post's exclusive franchise could be a problem for a user
> -- clearly it isn't OSM's place to worry about this, but the dynamic is
> real. Similarly, Japan's MLIT (whose data has already been imported) carries
> not only attribution requirements but, if memory services, prohibitions on
> misrepresenting the data's source. Having the data pass into and out of OSM
> would not free users from this obligation; in practice it's not a problem.

That's thoughts also. Good to know about those other examples too!

> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be -- and has been --
> cleared.

Great. People have started using this data and imagery now in OSM.

This permission from LPI is going to help in talks with other agencies
here who license CC-BY.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Tom Lee]

Point 1 is simple agreement.

Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as
unlikely as any).

Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable
proceeding under the assumption that "it can be clearly identified as LPI
data" will be a rare occurrence. It is already the case, after all, that
OSM contains data that cannot be legally used in certain places and/or
configurations. One example is reverse engineering data from OSM that
violates a national post's exclusive franchise could be a problem for a
user -- clearly it isn't OSM's place to worry about this, but the dynamic
is real. Similarly, Japan's MLIT (whose data has already been imported
)
carries not only attribution requirements but, if memory services,
prohibitions on misrepresenting the data's source. Having the data pass
into and out of OSM would not free users from this obligation; in practice
it's not a problem.

The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be -- and has been --
cleared.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I got a response:
>
> >>- OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived
> products into its database if attribution is provided as previously
> specified in this email chain.
> >Agree
>
> >>- You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be
> incorporated is presently licensed under the terms of the Open Database
> License (ODbL) version 1.0; and that it is possible for the project to
> update or change this license (though I should note that this has only
> happened once in the project's ten year history).
> >Agree, as long as the changes do not go against the CC by licence and our
> acknowledgment requirements.
>
> >>- You understand that OSM data is reused by various third parties under
> the terms of the ODbL ("downstream use") and in ways that make attribution
> of all original data sources impossible; and you therefore agree that
> downstream use of OSM data including or derived from NSW data is not
> subject to the "reasonable" attribution requirements imposed by the NSW
> data's CC-BY license.
> >Agree, unless it can be clearly identified as LPI Data. For example
> majority of the derivative work it made up of NSW data.
>
> My thoughts are, they're not going to throw out their CC BY license
> conditions, simply provide us with the extra clarifications around
> some of the terms within it.
>
> So if someone for instance imported all LPI data into OSM and then
> filtered the planet extract or API to only return LPI data, they would
> need to provide LPI attribution as per their request and not just
> attribute this as OSM.
>
>
> On 13 December 2015 at 21:57, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
> > On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> >  wrote:
> >> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
> >> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
> >> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
> >> licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
> >> completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
> >> and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
> >> permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
> >> be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
> >> might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.
> >
> > It would be easier, but you and Tom are correct that this would be
> > hard. Hard because CC BY is the standard license which almost all are
> > using here and even more so because in their view there is nothing
> > wrong with CC BY.
> >
> >> As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
> >> think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
> >> use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
> >> attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
> >> link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
> >> by their data?
> >
> > My interpretation of their view is yes that are aware that other
> > people could use OSM data and they may only get indirect attribution
> > and they are happy with this and believe this is okay as per the CC
> > license text.
> >
> > However, not in the latter case if for instance all their data were to
> > be imported into OSM and then someone pulled only their data from OSM,
> > in such a case they believe end users would need to attribute them. I
> > suppose that could be of a concern, so I'll reply back with Tom's
> > suggested wording for clarification.
> >
> > That said, the data they have released isn't 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

I got a response:

>>- OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products 
>>into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this 
>>email chain.
>Agree

>>- You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be 
>>incorporated is presently licensed under the terms of the Open Database 
>>License (ODbL) version 1.0; and that it is possible for the project to update 
>>or change this license (though I should note that this has only happened once 
>>in the project's ten year history).
>Agree, as long as the changes do not go against the CC by licence and our 
>acknowledgment requirements.

>>- You understand that OSM data is reused by various third parties under the 
>>terms of the ODbL ("downstream use") and in ways that make attribution of all 
>>original data sources impossible; and you therefore agree that downstream use 
>>of OSM data including or derived from NSW data is not subject to the 
>>"reasonable" attribution requirements imposed by the NSW data's CC-BY license.
>Agree, unless it can be clearly identified as LPI Data. For example majority 
>of the derivative work it made up of NSW data.

My thoughts are, they're not going to throw out their CC BY license
conditions, simply provide us with the extra clarifications around
some of the terms within it.

So if someone for instance imported all LPI data into OSM and then
filtered the planet extract or API to only return LPI data, they would
need to provide LPI attribution as per their request and not just
attribute this as OSM.


On 13 December 2015 at 21:57, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
>  wrote:
>> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
>> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
>> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
>> licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
>> completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
>> and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
>> permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
>> be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
>> might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.
>
> It would be easier, but you and Tom are correct that this would be
> hard. Hard because CC BY is the standard license which almost all are
> using here and even more so because in their view there is nothing
> wrong with CC BY.
>
>> As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
>> think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
>> use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
>> attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
>> link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
>> by their data?
>
> My interpretation of their view is yes that are aware that other
> people could use OSM data and they may only get indirect attribution
> and they are happy with this and believe this is okay as per the CC
> license text.
>
> However, not in the latter case if for instance all their data were to
> be imported into OSM and then someone pulled only their data from OSM,
> in such a case they believe end users would need to attribute them. I
> suppose that could be of a concern, so I'll reply back with Tom's
> suggested wording for clarification.
>
> That said, the data they have released isn't raw data, it's only
> imagery + raster basemaps, not sure if that makes a difference.
>
>> It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
>> an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be used in
>> OSM, rather than just that they're happy for the attribution that OSM
>> provides for its own direct use.
>
> I'm not a fan of that, because explicit permission for OSM to use such
> data wouldn't extend to any other downstream organisations using such
> data through OSM?
>
> On 13 December 2015 at 02:46, Tom Lee  wrote:
>> I agree that there's no harm in sending another email asking for assent to
>> more specific terms. I've drafted some suggested language, to make this
>> easy.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Having recently spoken to a number of parties about Australia's open data
>> push (specifically address data), including folks from the PM's office and
>> the NSW government, I doubt the odds of a dual-licensing request meeting
>> with success are very high. The national government is centralizing and
>> standardizing its open data program, and it's clear that their default
>> license will be CC-BY (or possibly a compatible national variant a la
>> license ouverte).
>
> Exactly my thoughts.
>
>> Andrew has already found someone who feels comfortable offering
>> clarifications and assurances regarding use and license interpretation;
>> asking for relicensing is likely 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
> licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
> completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
> and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
> permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
> be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
> might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.

It would be easier, but you and Tom are correct that this would be
hard. Hard because CC BY is the standard license which almost all are
using here and even more so because in their view there is nothing
wrong with CC BY.

> As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
> think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
> use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
> attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
> link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
> by their data?

My interpretation of their view is yes that are aware that other
people could use OSM data and they may only get indirect attribution
and they are happy with this and believe this is okay as per the CC
license text.

However, not in the latter case if for instance all their data were to
be imported into OSM and then someone pulled only their data from OSM,
in such a case they believe end users would need to attribute them. I
suppose that could be of a concern, so I'll reply back with Tom's
suggested wording for clarification.

That said, the data they have released isn't raw data, it's only
imagery + raster basemaps, not sure if that makes a difference.

> It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
> an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be used in
> OSM, rather than just that they're happy for the attribution that OSM
> provides for its own direct use.

I'm not a fan of that, because explicit permission for OSM to use such
data wouldn't extend to any other downstream organisations using such
data through OSM?

On 13 December 2015 at 02:46, Tom Lee  wrote:
> I agree that there's no harm in sending another email asking for assent to
> more specific terms. I've drafted some suggested language, to make this
> easy.

Thanks.

> Having recently spoken to a number of parties about Australia's open data
> push (specifically address data), including folks from the PM's office and
> the NSW government, I doubt the odds of a dual-licensing request meeting
> with success are very high. The national government is centralizing and
> standardizing its open data program, and it's clear that their default
> license will be CC-BY (or possibly a compatible national variant a la
> license ouverte).

Exactly my thoughts.

> Andrew has already found someone who feels comfortable offering
> clarifications and assurances regarding use and license interpretation;
> asking for relicensing is likely to require that she involve other parties,
> which could easily derail things. Still, I defer to his judgment about the
> best course.
>
> Suggested language follows:
>
> Thanks very much for your help with this matter. I think we understand one
> another, but for the sake of clarity, can you agree to the following three
> points?
>
> - OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products
> into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this
> email chain
>
> - You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be
> incorporated is presently licensed under the terms of the Open Database
> License (ODbL) version 1.0; and that it is possible for the project to
> update or change this license (though I should note that this has only
> happened once in the project's ten year history)
>
> - You understand that OSM data is reused by various third parties under the
> terms of the ODbL ("downstream use") and in ways that make attribution of
> all original data sources impossible; and you therefore agree that
> downstream use of OSM data including or derived from NSW data is not subject
> to the "reasonable" attribution requirements imposed by the NSW data's CC-BY
> license

I will reply back with that.

> Sorry to make this so formal, but I'm sure you can imagine the consequences
> for OpenStreetMap if we fail to make sure our data sources are legally
> compatible.

Agreed.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 11 December 2015 at 21:04, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I
> understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution
> (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any
> incorporated or derived datasets) is fine within the bounds of the CC
> BY 3.0 AU license already. They mentioned that the CC license has a
> concept of attribution reasonable or appropriate for the medium which
> covered this use case. They also mentioned that when their CC BY 3.0
> AU data is incorporated into a new work (which is more than just a
> trivial transformation) then there is no need for downstream
> attribution within the license.
>
> In a way they are merely letting us know of their interpretation of
> the license that it's terms already meet our requirements.

If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.

As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
by their data? It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be used in
OSM, rather than just that they're happy for the attribution that OSM
provides for its own direct use.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Tom Lee]

Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:

- questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
requirements in a geo context
- the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream
attribution requirements to be unreasonable in many cases, and don't
believe the obligation should apply in those cases
- the rightsholder has made it clear what attribution they wish to receive,
and it's obviously within OSM's power to comply with those wishes

I think this looks like a pretty good chance to incorporate some valuable
open data.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> We've received some correspondence from a state government department
> regarding the use of their CC BY 3.0 AU licensed data and imagery
> within OpenStreetMap.
>
> One OSM member initially received the response:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data#Cleary.27s_Letter
>
> I then followed up about some ambiguous sections of the text and
> received this response:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data#Andrew.27s_Letter
>
> Would this be sufficiently legally binding and legally solid to allow
> us to include their CC BY 3.0 AU licensed data, derivative data and
> information derived from their imagery within OSM?
>
> ___
> 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] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee  wrote:
> Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:
>
> - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
> impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
> requirements in a geo context
> - the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream
> attribution requirements to be unreasonable in many cases, and don't believe
> the obligation should apply in those cases
> - the rightsholder has made it clear what attribution they wish to receive,
> and it's obviously within OSM's power to comply with those wishes
>
> I think this looks like a pretty good chance to incorporate some valuable
> open data.

Thanks for your thoughts. I came to those exact same conclusions also,
so it's reassuring that you have too. I've added the base layers as
defaults for the editors and from the talk-au thread, people are using
this data now.

Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I
understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution
(where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any
incorporated or derived datasets) is fine within the bounds of the CC
BY 3.0 AU license already. They mentioned that the CC license has a
concept of attribution reasonable or appropriate for the medium which
covered this use case. They also mentioned that when their CC BY 3.0
AU data is incorporated into a new work (which is more than just a
trivial transformation) then there is no need for downstream
attribution within the license.

In a way they are merely letting us know of their interpretation of
the license that it's terms already meet our requirements.

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