Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-01-19
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
19 January 2023, 18:30 UTC
Minutes approved on 2023-02-13.
Some sections have been reordered.
- Dermot McNally
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Simon Hughes
- Tom Hummel
- Tom Lee
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
- Jim Vidano
Adoption of past minutes
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 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 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
2022-11-10 Kathleen Lu to write to GooseMaps. 2022-11-10 Guillaume Rischard to add the updated Copyright FAQ to the OSMF website.
- 2022-11-10 Guillaume Rischard to ask someone else on the Philippines community regarding proof of the use of OSMF trademarks there.
- 2022-11-10 Guillaume Rischard to pass the message to the board member who wrote to the LWG about Open Database License (ODbL).
2022-11-10 Kathleen Lu to reply to the query re CDLA 2.0. 2022-11-10 Kathleen Lu to reply to Ticket#2022080510000087 — Compatibility of Italian IODL 2.0 license. 2022-11-10 Kathleen Lu to invite the sender of Ticket#2022081410000104 (Lizenzprobleme in Indien) to attend the next LWG meeting, to understand what they're asking.
- 2022-12-08 Kathleen Lu to forward the email seeking endorsement to the board. [Topic: Email to trademarks@ - Kiwix]
- 2022-12-08 LWG to forward the email from dSpace to the board. [Topic: Ticket#2022120510000221 - dSpace request to show logo]
Reportage and action item updates
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
|Background by LWG|
|Making the beginning more friendly to new users - Is this something the Board can encourage/put some resources behind?
Kathleen has pinged the Communication Working Group (CWG)
Comment that the page is not owned by the LWG.
Finalize meeting times for 2023
Meetings moved to Mondays. Discussion about suitable dates, to avoid public holidays.
2023 LWG meeting dates:
Monday Feb 13
Monday Mar 06
Monday Apr 03
Monday May 15
Monday Jun 12
Monday Jul 10
Monday Aug 14
Monday Sep 11
Monday Oct 16
Monday Nov 13
Monday Dec 11
Monday Jan 08 2024
US daylight savings start - Mar 12 2023
EU daylight savings start - Mar 25 2023
EU daylight savings end - Oct 29 2023
US daylight savings end - Nov 5 2023
Launch of Overture Maps Foundation – Open discussion
|Related to the 2022-12-15 announcement by the Linux Foundation: "Overture Maps Foundation to Build Interoperable Open Map Data" .
Past board discussion:
This section was not minuted, after request.
Any updates on reported attribution cases?
Reports in OTRS:
- Ticket#2021081210000057 printed maps with false copyright
- Ticket#2022011910000082 interparcel.com: Dermot Emailed them on 10th Nov, no reply
- 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
Trademarks – any updates?
HOT trademark agreement update
The contact person from the Humanitarian OSM Team's side has changed.
Evidence of use in Philippines status
|Provided by LWG:
Mail from Ellis Sweetenham:
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:|
Eugene Alvin Villar's (Philippines) board term has ended.
Japan - trademark notice for the registration of OpenStreet
|Simon Hughes had forwarded a trademark notice in Japan for the registration of "OpenStreet". Kathleen forwarded the trademark notice to Lawdit and to OSMF Japan (Local Chapter), asking for their opinion.|
Decision: not oppose.
Any Other Business
Queries to legal-questions
Ticket#2022120510000177 - COPIE DE SIGNES DE BALISAGE
|Provided by LWG:
Nous avons constaté ces derniers temps que des QR Codes sont apposés, soit par vos soins soit par une personne indélicate, sur nos panneaux de balisage appartenant à la Fédération du Club Vosgien.
En ouvrant ceux-ci, nous constatons avec grand étonnement que nos itinéraires et nos balisages figurent sur vos cartes gratuites. Cette manière d’opérer peu cavalière nous déplaît fortement et est assimilable à de la plagia.
Aussi, je vous invite à remédier au plus vite à cette situation de retirer les QR Codes et de ne pas distribuer vos cartes sur lesquelles figurent nos signes de balisages.
J’attends de votre part la régularisation de la situation au plus vite ainsi que vos arguments sur cette manière d’opérer. N’ayant pas de réponse de votre part avant le 20 janvier, je me verrai dans l’obligation de saisir la justice.
By opening these, we note with great astonishment that our routes and our markings appear on your free maps. This somewhat cavalier way of operating greatly displeases us and is comparable to plagiarism.
Also, I invite you to remedy this situation as soon as possible by removing the QR Codes and not distributing your cards on which our marking signs appear.
I expect from you the regularization of the situation as soon as possible as well as your arguments on this way of operating. Having no response from you before January 20, I will be forced to take legal action.
OpenStreetMap does not produce cards with QR codes, and we have not had interaction with any signposts you operate. It is possible that some unknown person has printed copies of OpenStreetMap, or a link to OpenStreetMap, as this is free to do because it is a public website, but we did not distribute the cards or QR Codes.
OpenStreetMap ne produit pas d’autocollants avec des codes QR, et nous n’avons pas eu de contact avec les balisages que vous mentionnez. Il est possible qu'une personne inconnue ait fait imprimer des autocollants avec un code QR contenant un lien vers des cartes basées sur OpenStreetMap, ou un lien vers OpenStreetMap, comme chacun est libre de le faire car il s'agit d'un site web public, mais nous n'avons pas distribué les cartes ou les codes QR.
<One more sentence was here. Decision to not be included in the answer.>
- They seem troubled by the addition of QR codes on their physical maps.
Suggestions regarding LWG's answer
- Remove the last sentence of the proposed answer.
- Mention that we have not added the QR codes or condone the action.
- Emphasize that we have a lot of contributors.
- Contact the local mappers.
- Probably avoid it.
On recurring discussion on French community on whether trails are protected by copyright: Trails that only manifest on the map and on the ground, would probably be protected by copyright.
In this specific case, looking at satellite imagery, paths are visible. They could have been mapped on OSM from imagery or people might have hiked them.
Action item: Guillaume to reply to ticket on OTRS in French.
Simon Hughes had to disconnect 56' after start.
Inquiry re Finnish satellite imagery
|Provided by LWG:
First email in English, rest machine-translated. Original in LWG inbox.
I have been in contact with NLSFI recently.
While they have repeatedly expressed approval of a mention in osm.org/copyright being enough as an attribution, they will not sign the anti-DRM Compatibility waiver, or any other extra documents.
This probably means that post-2015 NLS data cannot be used, at least directly.
Finnish statutory and case law is AFAIK unclear what it comes to a manual trace of a map being a derivative work, but they would prefer an Attribution even then, too.
Forwarded Message --------
Subject: VS: VS: OpenStreetMap and attribution
Sent by: Iiro Laiho <iiro@***.***>
The material is licensed under that license, and we do not make any additional documents related to it.
Well, as I said before, it should be mentioned as a source.
So I'm not a lawyer, but question 1 is related to minor incompatibilities between CC-BY 4.0 and the ODbL license used by OSM regarding technical copy protections. Just on the basis that the material has been published under the CC-BY 4.0 license, the material in question cannot be copied to OpenStreetMap.
Question 2 is, on the other hand, very relevant in relation to this matter, because (at least according to my knowledge) the utilization of MML's material in OSM after the 2015 license change is limited to the fact that roads and buildings, for example, have been manually added to the map using raster materials as an aid. Before the license change, data had also been copied directly using automatic computer programs. I have understood that the case law is at least somewhat unclear in this regard.
I am not in any kind of service relationship with the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and I do not receive any kind of compensation for investigating this matter. However, I consider the position of a citizen to be a great loss and a very inappropriate situation if, for example, all or a large part of OpenStreetMap's content about Finland has to be destroyed for bureaucratic reasons.
Regards, Iiro Laiho
On 17.1.2023 17.24, Tarvainen Teija wrote:
I'm not sure if I understood this question, but according to our license, the source must be mentioned in connection with the service, and I would also like to mention the update date of the material, if possible. If, for example, it is constantly updated, this could be mentioned.
Sent by: Iiro Laiho <iiro@***.***>
Would it be possible to get an answer to this question?
OSM representative Simon Poole had sent me the following message:
Dear Iiro Keeping the copyright information, in both locations, up to date is a community task, particularly considering that Attribution is the "copyright" page is only added when it is a hard requirement by the licensor. In this case I would suggest checking with NLS if a) Attribution on the "copyright" page is still required, if yes, you should create a corresponding pull request in the website repository https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website b) if the necessary waivers for use of CC BY material in OSM have been granted (if not, derived material will have to be removed), see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates Simon Am 02.04.2020 um 13:39 schrieb Iiro Laiho: Hello, I have noticed that according to OpenStreetMap's copyright page, data received from NLS Finland is licensed under their custom license. Since 2015, they have however used the CC-BY license. The page also lacks the Attribution to some important datasets that have been used with OSM, like the raster maps. It also does not mention the dates when the data has been received. I have added an up-to-date Attribution to the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#National_Land_Survey_of_Finland Please update the Attribution on the https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright page. -- Iiro Laiho -- Iiro Laiho
On 6 July 2021 17:47, Iiro Laiho wrote:
I'm sorry that this matter has dragged on.
Openstreetmap would like an English-language consent to use the data. Would it be possible to get the attached consent form signed? That would be an acceptance that the copyright mention on the page osm.org/copyright is sufficient for the Land Surveying Institute. In addition, there is consent that the data may also be distributed in a DRM-protected format, as long as an unprotected format is also available in accordance with the ODbL license.
There is more information about the latter point on the following page: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
Tarvainen Teija (MML) wrote on April 14, 2020 at 9:23 a.m.:
Hey, As I stated in our phone conversation, the new mention you presented below is ok. best regards Teija Tarvainen Teija Tarvainen leading expert Land Surveying Institute, Information services tel. 040 *****
Sent by: Iiro Laiho <iiro@***.***>
Hey, I was actually in touch with you by phone this afternoon. So I have a couple of questions about licensing. In 2013, the Land Surveying Office issued a statement that map data can be imported into OpenStreetMap if the copyright page ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en ) mentions the Land Surveying Office and its license. Currently, the wording there is as follows: "Finland: Contains data from the National Land Survey of Finland's Topographic Database and other datasets, under the NLSFI License." So it refers to the old license. Due to the license change, I have outlined the following source citation: 'Contains data from the "Topographic Database", "Background map series (raster)", "Topographic map series (raster)", "NLS Ortophotos" and other datasets from the National Land Survey of Finland. Data has been received from 08/2013 onwards. Data received before 01/2015 is licensed under NLS Open Data License and since then under CC-BY-4.0.' The names of the licenses would therefore be links to the license text. Are things legally OK on behalf of the Land Surveying Institute if the source and license mention of the copyright page I linked is updated to the latter format? Quoted is the message I previously sent to the application support address.
-- Sincerely, Iiro Laiho
Original message ----------
Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Recipient: email@example.com Date: 4. April 2020, at 02.01 am Subject:[MITPA #1531799] Automatic reply: Re: Contact via online form/License
Thank you for contacting us, your service request has been received. We will contact you if necessary. If you reply to this message, please use the reply function without changing the subject field of the message. Regards, Land Surveying Institute, ServiceDesk
Hey, Thanks for the answer. However, I would like a little more clarification on this matter. I have now updated the citation of the updated version on the OpenStreetMap wiki page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#National_Land_Survey_of_Finland . However, it is not yet on OpenStreetMap's copyright page, which is therefore at https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright , which I mentioned in the previous post. So the current text on the wiki is as follows: "Contains data from the "Topographic Database", "Background map series (raster)", "Topographic map series (raster)", "NLS Ortophotos" and other datasets from the National Land Survey of Finland. Data has been received from 08/ 2013 onwards. Data received before 01/2015 is licensed under NLS Open Data License and since then under CC-BY-4.0." So is it okay on behalf of the Land Surveying Institute if the above text is also updated with the copyright information there? On the OpenStreetMap forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=356296#p356296 , the permission to use materials obtained from MML in 2013 is quoted. Can you easily check if the quote in question is genuine?
On March 18, 2020, at 2:27 p.m., apliäistuki@maanmittauslaitos.fi wrote:
Hey, The Land Surveying Institute's valid open data license is at the address https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/avoindata-lisenssi-cc40 and accordingly the source should be mentioned.
Hey, I would have a question about the use of MML data in Openstreetmap, that the old license of MML is still mentioned there: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . In addition, no years have been mentioned when the data has been used. However, MML's data has been used even after the license change, because MML's raster levels are still available by default in the iD editor and JOSM. The question is whether MML's data is still suitable for importing into Openstreetmap in terms of licensing. In addition, you should know what you should read on that copyright page at the moment.
13 February 2023, 18:30 GMT