Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2022-11-10
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
10 November 2022, 17:30 UTC
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Hummel
- Simon Hughes
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
- Tom Lee
Adoption of past minutes
- 2022-10-13 Accepted
Previous action items
- 2017-03-02 Simon Poole to determine existing obligations towards sources listed on the copyright page.
- 2017-05-04 All/Simon Poole to review import guidelines with regards to licence “approval”.
- 2018-03-08 All to look at the Working Groups collecting personal information.
- 2018-04-12 LWG to follow-up on the iD editor, as the number of changesets is now included on the changeset comments thread.
- 2019-01-10 Simon Poole to draft text to developers of apps related to geo/mapping, having OSM in their names or using variations of our logo.
- 2019-02-14 Simon Poole to summarise the advice regarding information requests from law enforcement and send it around.
- 2019-12-12 Simon Poole to discuss trademark registration strategy (more countries, additional classes, etc) with lawdit
- 2020-01-09 Simon Poole to include text about downstream produced works to the FAQ.
- 2020-03-12 Simon Poole to send to Mateusz the link with the research by Kathleen Lu on attribution on various apps.
- 2020-09-10 Simon Poole to set-up call with Kathleen Lu and our UK lawyer about trademarks.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole and Guillaume Rischard to look at the translation issue of the copyright policy page.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole to send his Moovit contact to Guillaume Rischard.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole to send a summary of which action items need to be done.
- 2021-01-14 Guillaume Rischard to report on Board status re identification of outside counsel
- 2021-02-11 Kathleen Lu to check LWG-specific membership requirements on the OSMF website and Conflict of Interest policy and provide to Dorothea any updates for the website.
- 2021-03-11 Guillaume Rischard to sort out various email issues -
Making sure Dermot McNally is on the main legal mailing issue, making sure everyone is getting OTRS email notifications for the legal queue.
- 2021-07-08 Guillaume Rischard to meet with Dermot McNally about using OTRS.
- 2021-07-08 LWG members to provide comment on the HOT draft trademark agreement on the next meeting.
- 2021-07-08 Jim Vidano to look at next steps for Opensnowmap.org paperwork after the trademark request has been approved by the board.
- 2021-07-08 Dermot McNally to ask Tobias for expected outcome regarding the request for change of the text of the standard tile license.
- 2021-08-12 Tom Hummel to suggest text to be published regarding OSMF's legitimate interest in processing personal data.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to reply to Tobias about simplifying the text of the tile licence.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to make the pull request on Github openstreemap-website regarding attribution requirements for OSMF tiles
- 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to communicate back to contacts regarding Australian data attribution and suggest filling the waiver template.
- 2021-08-12 LWG to identify OSMF legal texts that might be needed under German law to be in German.
- 2021-09-09 Jim Vidano to ask Simon Poole whether he has previous emails contacting companies that were not displaying attribution.
- 2021-09-09 Guillaume Rischard to check past emails (e.g. last year ones related to case in Germany where they settled in court) for any sent to companies not complying with attribution requirements and to send what he finds, including links to the Github repositories with the lists of not complying organisations, to the Signal group.
- 2021-09-09 Jim Vidano and Dermot McNally (2021-12-09) to create a draft template email for the community to contact organisations regarding non compliance with the attribution guidelines
- 2021-09-09 Dermot McNally to reply to Jean-Marc Liotier (board of directors) with the LWG decision to create a template email for minor cases of non-compliance with the attribution guidelines available to the community and the LWG to directly contact bigger companies.
- 2022-01-13 Simon Hughes to download a copy of the Copyright FAQ page and mark anything that is not matching the attribution guidelines or is confusing and circulate that to the LWG.
- 2022-04-14 Guillaume Rischard to ask Tom Hughes to see how many translations of the Copyright and Copyright FAQ page are live. Topic Needed: Update to Copyright FAQ page to match new attribution guidelines
- 2022-04-14 Guillaume Rischard to talk to Grant Slater (Senior Site Reliability Engineer) about cutting tile access to Impresa Italia. Topic Impresa Italia - Missing attribution case of commercial site using our tiles
- 2022-04-14 Guillaume Rischard to update agenda with Navionics (Garmin) success. Topic Fixing attribution success
- 2022-06-09 Guillaume Rischard to check with Amanda regarding the return-to address she used to the letter about printed maps with false copyright
- 2022-06-09 Guillaume Rischard to check with the rest of the board about the advice on CWG with LWG to rework the copyright page.
- 2022-09-15 Dermot McNally to send an email to the companies mentioned on Ticket#2022011910000082 and Ticket#202201261000014
- 2022-09-15 Guillaume Rischard to ask Eugene Villar (board member from Philippines) about any evidence of OSM trademark use in Philippines that can be submitted.
- 2022-09-15 Guillaume Rischard to respond to the email Ticket#202208041000024 and redirected to right person.
- 2022-09-15 Kathleen Lu to write to Tom Hughes and ask if the issue he was concerned with was https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/989#issuecomment-110209086
- 2022-10-13 Guillaume Rischard to check that Eugene has replied regarding evidence of trademark use in Philippines
- 2022-10-13 Kathleen Lu to reply to GooseMaps that adding OSM to onboarding screen would be a promising solution and will ask for screenshots.
- 2022-10-13 Tom Lee to add the updated Copyright FAQ to the OSMF website. Dorothea to provide access.
- 2022-10-13 LWG to look at Kathleen's previous answer regarding CDLA 2.0 and indicate whether they agree.
- 2022-10-13 Guillaume Rischard to take the Ticket#2022100310000013 issue to the board (related to legal consequences for “unlicensed surveying”)
- 2022-10-13 Tom Hummel to point to the Corporate Membership page or the donation page. Ticket#2022101110000098
New action items from this meeting
- Kathleen Lu to write to GooseMaps.
- Guillaume Rischard to add the updated Copyright FAQ to the OSMF website.
- Guillaume Rischard to ask someone else on the Philippines community regarding proof of the use of OSMF trademarks there.
- Kathleen Lu to join the OPS meeting on the 1st of December regarding the iFrame on osm.org on osm.org.
- Tom Hummel to join the next OPS meeting (17 November 2022) regarding the long-term cookie on osm.org.
- Guillaume Rischard to pass the message to the board member who wrote to the LWG about Open Database License (ODbL).
- Kathleen Lu to reply to the query re CDLA 2.0.
- Kathleen Lu to reply to Ticket#2022080510000087 — Compatibility of Italian IODL 2.0 license.
- Kathleen Lu to invite the sender of Ticket#2022081410000104 (Lizenzprobleme in Indien) to attend the next LWG meeting, to understand what they're asking.
Reportage and action item updates
|Background provided by LWG|
|Excerpt from emails between company and LWG|
> The onboarding screen looks very promising. We do think it would be better if the second sentence were to read "To help improve the map, go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright"
Sure, but maybe you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org instead of copyright link?
> The About screen looks pretty good too. I assume that OpenStreetMap on that screen would be a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright ?
That really depends on what user's action you want. To read about the licence? To register as a new user? To read about OSM in general? We can make whatever you need.
> Can you mention OpenStreetMap and link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright in the description of the app in the App Store?
Sure. But first it may be only for the English speaking country store, we will need time to get translations.
> If someone does not use the companion app, is there a menu somewhere in the watch that they could navigate to, in order to see the information and URL for https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright? We ask because, once someone is through onboarding, if they later think, oh, I'd like to find out more about the map, they should be able to, and the app seems to be optional.
Sorry, right now we do not have something like that in a watch. Users will definitely go to the companion app at least one more time - to buy the subscription. So there's no problem with the discovery. Plus we have additional plans to extend the scope of the companion app (like managing tracks and so on).
It's ok that they currently have the description of the app in the appstore only in English.
General suggestions regarding attribution
- it would be good for people to be able to copy and paste the attribution in different languages, to make it easier to attribute us.
- watermark any images that refer to the OSM website and get rid of the iFrame, so that people don't have much work to do to attribute us.
On cases where people do not use the companion app
- It's very difficult to do anything with the watch only.
Action item: Kathleen Lu to write to GooseMaps.
Any updates on reported attribution cases?
Reports in OTRS:
- Ticket#2021081210000057 printed maps with false copyright
- Ticket#2022011910000082 interparcel.com
- Ticket#2022012610000149 https://poster.printmijnstad.nl/editor/city
- complaint that Aberdeen city council may not be attributing correctly – https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/news/consultation-starts-street-improvements-ashgrove-road
- Note that Aberdeen credits Ordnance Survey, so possible OS is using OSM as one of many sources and the full attribution is not getting carried through
- Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop
- Hermes UK changed name to evri. So this is an old issue.
- Ticket#2022062610000078 -
- Härryda, Sweden, uses Open Street Map for an app they developed. Inside the app there are no license references to OSM.
- You can see the app on the Google Apps store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=se.harryda.medborgar.app&gl=US
- Ticket#2021120810000146 mondialrelay.fr not attributing correctly
Dermot emailed interparcel.com with an adapted email, as they use a map with OSM data for tracking, and then noticed that their contact page also has a slippy map that uses OSM data and doesn't attribution.
The person who wrote to us
- Was confident that the ordered printed maps do not attribute, but Dermot cannot know that.
- Had correspondence with the company - they mentioned the website map, which apparently has not been fixed.
- Mentioned misspelling of attribution on website - no attribution seen.
Points mentioned during discussion:
- We can contact the company anyway, because the online preview of the map should have attribution itself.
- The printed products probably won't have been fixed.
Decision: Dermot to look into the issue.
Update to Copyright FAQ to match new attribution guidelines
|There is a need to update the Copyright FAQ page to match the Attribution guidelines.
Previous LWG minutes
Tom Lee updating Copyright FAQ page with [link to online draft] – status?
- Tom Lee could not get an editor account on the OSMF website - the OPS team is aware.
- Final version of Copyright FAQ is in OnlyOffice, not in MediaWiki format yet.
Action item: Guillaume Rischard to add the updated Copyright FAQ to the OSMF website.
Trademarks – any updates?
Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update
Guillaume - Evidence of use in Philippines status
|Background provided by LWG|
|Mail from Ellis Sweetenham:|
We have today received the attached notification that the Openstreetmap registration in the Philippines is reaching its deadline to provide evidence of actual use within the 3rd year of registration.
The deadline to submit this is the 10 January 2023. Please confirm if you have used the mark in the Philippines and what evidence you hold.
Previous LWG minutes:
Action item: Guillaume Rischard to ask someone else on the Philippines community.
Simon - Any new notices
Updates to OpenStreetMap website
|Background by LWG|
|Share panel on openstreetmap.org main page – opportunities for improvement? Under the "Share" option on the right, why do we have an HTML option that provides iframe code? Doesn't having that just encourage embedding and overuse of OSMF map tiles by commercial entities?
Under Share, we have an Image option where people can download a snapshot. Why don't we auto-print attribution to this snapshot?
Can we say something like “Not intended for commercial use. Availability not guaranteed. Use must be in conformance with the Acceptable Use Policy.”
Who to send the suggestions to: osm.org website developers. Final decision maker is probably the board.
- Undermining our message, as we're encouraging commercial entities to use our tiles. They think it is a service we offer.
- We're not against small businesses using osm.org tiles.
- Annoying for LWG to get questions on how much tile usage is too much, that cannot be consistently answered, about how much it costs and about our cookies policy.
- Tile usage policy is unclear and inconsistent.
- It's not free advertisement, as the servers cost us.
- It's not that expensive.
On having the iFrame as it provides us free advertisement
- Gets people to use the map. Adds us in several places.
- Then we should stop saying we do not condone random use of our tiles.
- Lands people on the copyright page.
- From operations point of view, it is not a pain point.
Suggestions - general
- If the LWG wants to define the limits of the tile usage, they can talk with Operations.
- We would set expectations and our limits could change in the future depending on financial difficulties.
- Bounce tickets with tile-usage related questions to Operations.
- It takes time to answer the questions and bounce them.
On defining the limits of the tile usage
- Not a good idea, as OSMF could have a financial crisis and might need to take these services off, even if people are below the stated tile usage limits.
Suggestions regarding the iFrame, so that people don't email LWG
Change wording of "Paste html to embed"
- Add that this is not a commercial service.
- Add that availability is not guaranteed.
- Add that people need to conform to the acceptable usage policy and link to it.
- We can also say that we don't provide support, we don't exist to provide these services and people can build their own stack of find a commercial service provider.
On restricting tile usage
We have blocked in the past heavy tile usage from entities who were not attributing OSM.
Suggestion: Guillaume Rischard to mention the LWG suggestions to next OPS meeting. While the OPS team is not in charge of the website, in practice it is the same people.
Action item: Kathleen Lu to join the OPS meeting on the 1st of December.
Top50 - tile usage from yesterday
(First number: tiles/sec. Second number: tiles not in cache/sec - a high number might indicate scraping).
|Background by LWG|
|Report by Tom Hummel (LWG) – do we need a cookie banner, per requirements of the ePrivacy Directive? Is the requirement likely to change in 2023, such that we should await the new guidance first?
cookie banner exemption: “strictly necessary […] to provide a[…] service”
Opinions: art.29 working party
(note: conflicting with newer ECJ:Planet49 ruling, see rec.№ 68; general threshold for consent is still art. 4 I Nr.11, 6 I1a), 7, recital 42 GDPR; necessitates opt-in)
Inconclusive, custom risk assessment within the DPAs recommendations
We have to decide between website analytics or cookie banner.
- One of our cookies has a lifespan of 13 months, which seems too long.
- Technically we do not need a cookie.
- Cookie provides useful information about how people use the website but is not necessary.
- 90 days of logs for analytics, after which it gets truncated.
- Probably mostly used for website navigation tracking and server balancing.
On osm.org analytics
We do not ask any questions that strictly require cookies. Analytics:
- Screen resolution
- Browser usage
- Pages visited
- It will change counts.
- It might not be significant.
- We can say that we're not tracking people.
Directive that has to be implemented in all EU member states. While OSMF is not in the EU, we're doing business i and that places us under the jurisdiction of the directive.
Not a data protection/GDPR issue - strictly about the cookie.
Issue: Placing the cookie on the device of the visitor and rereading is problematic, not the data collected.
- Germany: Legal situation regarding cookies recently changed in Germany, which was very lax before.
- The data protection agencies in different countries have different opinions.
- New EU law coming in 1-2 years which might change the situation again.
- Not clear if the directive asks us to set-up a cookie banner for the cookie we use.
EU working party some years ago
- recommended low lifespan of cookie
- said that service cannot be refused, if the user refuses the cookie
- first party analytics should not be allowed to have a cookie without consent.
- A cookie banner gives a bad user experience.
- People in Europe are used to cookie banners (but hate them).
- Technically not difficult to implement.
- Accept all button
- Reject all button
- Mention the types of cookies we have (probably just necessary and analytics)
Provide options to Operations Working Group: Remove cookie or make a cookie banner.
Action item: Tom Hummel to join the next OPS meeting (17 November 2022).
|Background by LWG|
|Updates to the openstreetmap.org/copyright page to make it more friendly – Kathleen has pinged the Communication Working Group (CWG)|
Suggestion: Guillaume Rischard to raise the issue to the board meeting.
Request from the Board re ODbL inbound data
|Background by LWG|
|Board email to LWG below:
At our mid-month chat in August, the board has discussed imports of data which is strictly ODbL-licensed, without any special permissions for its use in OSM. As far as we know, this kind of import does occur and there is, at the moment, no rule or expectation to prevent it.
At the same time, one of the goals of the Contributor Terms is the ability to change the license under which we publish the OSM database without incurring a prohibitive loss of existing data.
It is our understanding that importing ODbL-licensed data undermines this ability because any such imported data would have to be deleted (along with any contributions built on it) in the event of a license change. Permitting such imports to occur therefore constrains our strategic flexibility to perform another license change in the future if we and the OSM community ever choose to do so.
The board has taken no decisions in the matter, nor do we have made any plans besides seeking WG input. However, we have been briefly talking about possible steps to preserve that strategic flexibility. One such idea was to update the DWG-enforced guidelines for imports, such as the Import Guidelines and the Automated Edits Code of Conduct, to rule out such imports in the future (while accepting that some have already happened in the past).
We would appreciate your thoughts on the topic to inform any further steps, if any, we take in the matter.
Concern that Open Database License (ODbL) imported data undermines our right to relicence the data in the future, in case of a licence change.
- Imports of ODbL-licenced dat
On Open Database License (ODbL)
- Not many licences that are outbound compatible with ODbL - probably none.
- OSM is the single prominent user of ODbL. If ODbL is so onerous that OSM cannot inbound accept it, then why use it?
- It is currently inbound compatible, but data might not be compatible with a different licence in the future, if we relicence.
On current state
We have a lot of data imported with ODbL licences or from people who gave us waivers.
- Reaching out to people: It was very hard during the previous licence change. It is especially hard in cases of imports.
- Licence change is not the way to go.
- Data imported with ODbL licence will be the least of our concerns in a case of future licence change.
- It probably would not be possible for OSM to move to a more restrictive licence, except in superficial ways.
- Unless you take any imported data under an MIT licence, and licence change will be difficult.
- If the current licence was changed to CCBY, then it would be easier for imported datasets which were under CCBY, as it would not change the waiver's status.
Points mentioned during discussion
- A lot of people think that we should not import datasets at all.
- As we already have a lot of ODbL data imported, no point on pondering what-if questions.
Do we still accept ODbL data?
- Mention on the import guidelines that people need to be mindful where the ODbL dataset came from and think about future communication with the origin of data, in case of future relicensing.
- That's true for every licence.
Action item: Guillaume Rischard to pass the message to the board member who wrote to the LWG.
Dermot had to disconnect 60' after start.
Any Other Business
Query re CDLA 2.0
Tom Hummel agrees with Kathleen's message
Action item: Kathleen Lu to reply to the query re CDLA 2.0.
Ticket#2022080510000087 — Compatibility of Italian IODL 2.0 license
|Background by LWG|
|Dear OSM Legal Team,
would you please evaluate the compatibility of the "Italian Open Data License v2.0": https://www.dati.gov.it/content/italian-open-data-license-v20
This is the license recently used by the Italian AGID (Agency for Digital Italy) and has already been used in various imports into OSM. Since the license requires attribution I have serious concerns about the legality of those imports.
[Kathleen - The attribution provision (“ indicare la fonte delle Informazioni e il nome del Licenziante, includendo, se possibile, una copia di questa licenza o un collegamento (link) ad essa.” – Google translation: “indicate the source of the Information and the name of the Licensor, including, if possible, a copy of this license or a link to it.”) appears to be fairly relaxed and similar to the UK OGL 3.0’s requirements, which are inbound compatible with ODbL] ”
Action item: Kathleen Lu to reply to Ticket#2022080510000087 — Compatibility of Italian IODL 2.0 license
Ticket#2022081410000104 - Lizenzprobleme in Indien
|Background provided by LWG|
|Ich schreibe als Mitglied der indische OSM-Community.
In der indischen OSM-Telegram Gruppe (Martijin von Exel ist seit einigen Tagen dort Mitglied) gibt es momentan Diskussionen über die Interpretation der staatlichen Lizenzbestimmungen und weiterer gesetzlicher Vorgaben. Leider ist kein Kontakt zu einem Anwalt vorhanden, der in diesen Fragen kompetent ist.
Es wurde versucht, Anfragen an die zuständigen Behörden zu stellen. Jedoch meist erhält man keine Anwort oder es kommen Fragen wie
„Before I answer, what is your profile and your intention?“
Zusammengefasst: Anfragen von unbekannten Privatpersonen werden einfach ignoriert.
Im Bundesstaat Kerala hat es Kontakte gegeben und auch erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit.
All diese Probleme hat Google natürlich nicht, die haben sich alle Rechte schon vor Jahren mit Geld erkauft.
Die rechtliche Lage in Indien ist offensichtlich speziell und mit europäischen Verhältnissen nicht vergleichbar.
Hilfreich wäre nach meiner Meinung, wenn über die Lizenz Working Group Anfragen verschickt werden, um zu klären, ob die Verwendung der Daten zu für OSM brauchbaren Bedingungen möglich ist.
Mögliche Ansprechpartner von OSM wären::
Links zu den wichtigsten staalichen Unterlagen können wir zusammenstellen.:
Ich hoffe, die Lizenz working group kann uns behilflich sein.
Und ich schreibe in Deutsch, da mein Englisch doch sehr beschränkt ist.:
In the Indian OSM-Telegram group (Martijin von Exel has been a member for a few days) there are currently discussions about the interpretation of the state license regulations and other legal requirements. Unfortunately, there is no contact with a lawyer who is competent in these questions.
An attempt was made to make inquiries to the responsible authorities. However, most of the time you don't get an answer or you get questions like
"Before I answer, what is your profile and your intention?"
In summary: Requests from unknown private individuals are simply ignored.
Here are some problems:
Of course, Google doesn't have all these problems, they bought all the rights with money years ago.
The legal situation in India is obviously special and cannot be compared with European conditions.
In my opinion, it would be helpful if inquiries were sent via the License Working Group to clarify whether the use of the data is possible under conditions that are useful for OSM.
Possible contacts from OSM would be:
We can put together links to the most important government documents.
I hope the license working group can help us.
And I write in German because my English is very limited.
[Kathleen: We can try to help, but this sounds hard...Can we have volunteers for a working group to correspond with this group via direct email?]
- Some are cultural questions, or questions of trust, not legal ones.
- The language barrier is making it difficult.
- Email was in German.
Action item: Kathleen Lu to invite the sender of Ticket#2022081410000104 (Lizenzprobleme in Indien) to attend the next LWG meeting, to understand what they're asking.
Ticket#2022081910000079 Licence question for future app
|Background provided by LWG|
|I am an OpenStreetMap contributor and OSMF member and I have an idea for an app. But I have a license question that I'd like to clarify before starting to code.
What the app is supposed to do is explained in the README linked above, so I will focus here on the legal aspect:
The app will take information from an OSM object and automatically create a Wikimedia Commons file description page from that. For example:
The user takes an image of the building. The app takes the object tags and other information from OSM to automatically make an image description page:
Beispielstrasse 12, Berlin.jpg
How can I do that without violating ODbL? Will it be enough to add an attribution template to the page like
"The original file description on this page was automatically created from OpenStreetMap data and is licensed under ODbL 1.0"?
Or will it be a problem that all Wikimedia Commons pages are licensed under Creative Commons?
[Kathleen – I don’t think this is a compatible use, but I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking creatively about it]
- Probably an extract, as he's pulling the OSM tags.
- Importing to Wikimedia commons might be an issue, as it has a different licence that's not compatible.
- He wants to go from OSM to Wikimedia.
- Could suggest to him to go from Wikimedia commons to OSM.
- That's not what he wants to do.
Email to trademarks@
|Background provided by LWG|
|Dear members of the OpenStreetMap Foundation,
surprised by the fact that the Kiwix library only contains the OpenStreetMap Wiki, I decided that I want to provide a locally available tile cache, packaged as a ZIM file that can be opened offline with the Kiwix reader (https://www.kiwix.org/). As a consequence, I downloaded the planet file and locally rendered it up to zoom level 14. "The offline OpenStreetMap", as I intend to call my project, includes a place name index and some useful layers that are taken straight from the database. My project is a clear example of non-commercial use, and surely will help with the recruitment of new members.
Your trademark policy makes the legal situation clear. Still, I would like to ask for the permission to call the project "The offline OpenStreetMap" (TOO) and use your logo. Actually, I am looking forward to be officially endorsed.
I also want to give you the possibility to give comments on the prototype (see attachment). From a marketing perspective, this may be helpful.
For hosting, I intend to contact Kiwix, which has a purpose-built mirror and torrent infrastructure. My project may even reduce traffic towards your tile servers as it fulfills requirements of heavy tile users. How about prominently placing links to the ZIM files in form of torrents? I think that this could be a so-called Win-Win-situation.
- From a trademarks perspective there does not seem to be an issue.
- Why officially endorse this particular project and not others?
- You can already download the OSM wiki to read offline.
Not exclusive name. It can be called "OSM offline" but not the only one who can use that term. Similar to the past OSMF board decision which allowed a commercial company to use an OSMF trademark in the name of a product (OSM buildings) while a community project with the same name already existed.
Simon Hughes had to disconnect 66' after start.
|Background provided by LWG|
Copyright-Vermerk anzugeben habe, bin mir aber wegen verschiedener Möglichkeiten nicht sicher. Wie muss heutzutage die Formulierung lauten, wenn ich einen Kartenausschnitt downloade und ihn in einem Heft verwenden möchte, dass als Stadtquiz verkauft werden soll?
Diese Karte soll im Heft abgedruckt werden. Wie lautet dafür der korrekte Urhebervermerk? Wenn Sie mir da weiter helfen könnten, wäre ich Ihnen sehr dankbar!
Im Voraus, besten Dank für Ihre Bemühungen! Mit freundlichen Grüsen.
[Kathleen: I think this is just asking for the form of attribution. Can someone reply in German?]
Suggestion: A German speaker to translate.
2022-12-08 at 1830 UTC
Recommended dates for 2023
2023-01-12 - 1830 UTC
Meeting adjourned 71' after start.