Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-06-12

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
12 June 2023, 18:00 UTC

Participants

Dermot McNally (Chairing)
Jim Vidano
Tom Hummel
Tom Lee
Simon Hughes
Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)

Absent

Kathleen Lu

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

2023-05-15 Deferred for July

Previous action items

Reportage and action item updates

DSA

Background by LWG

See previous email - OSM is a “microentity” with very limited proactive obligations.

For now, yes, see rec. 44 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj ; somebody double check?

We would need a legal representative, see rec. 44.

Action item: The lawyers in LWG to review https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj to see if anything was overlooked.

Tom Hughes offered to review.

Patent donation

Board decided not to take it. Kathleen has made an intro to Keith Bergelt at Open Invention Network.

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
Ticket#2022033010000217
- 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
Ticket#2022120510000177 — Club Vosgien complaint – any reply?

Trademarks – any updates?

Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update

Guillaume to try to get in contact with HOT's new executive director.

Guillaume - Evidence of use in Philippines status – done?

It has lapsed. To be removed.

Simon - Any new notices?

No updates.

New trademark quick license for merchandise

Thank you Simon and team for preparing. Any comments beyond the email thread?

There were two suggestions on the draft document.

Suggestion: Decide on the next steps.

Holdover items

How to pass tickets to the Operations Working Group (OWG), or does OWG have a template answer?

Background by LWG

I would like to use OSM maps for a new non-commercial science project in Poland (Europe). Are there legal restrictions on using map zoom? We are currently using maps at site https://meteo.imgw.pl/dyn/ and cannot zoom to level 1 lower. Could you explain me what zoom level can we use?

I am developing a web app for independent couriers, and using OSM/Leaflet routing engine to display directions with multiple waypoints. I am using OSM because I believe in your mission, and the philosophy of open source in general, but I also want to be respectful of API bandwidth.

I am currently in development and have no paying customers, but so I can plan, at what user volume/threshold should I consider deploying OSM on my own server?

Guillaume was under the impression that since the tickets were in OTRS, they can be moved to a new queue. Operations Working Group (OWG) uses Github.

Suggestion: Provide an OTRS queue to the OWG.

OTRS is an issue/ticket tracker used by several Working Groups of the OpenStreetMap Foundation.

Action item: Guillaume to contact OWG about them getting an OTRS queue, so that LWG can move tickets to them.

Where to forward user deletion requests?

To the OWG.

Any way to block address in OTRS? Junk mail levels have become intolerable

Awaiting Guillaume’s report.

Also OWG-related.
This will be an ongoing process.

Reminder action item: Guillaume to ask Grant about how to block address in OTRS.

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría

Background by LWG

Buenas tardes. Solicito su apoyo amablemente para asesoría en contribución de información a la plataforma de OSM. La cual contempla información de tipo vectorial: líneas (nomenclatura de calles oficiales del municipio de Temoaya, Estado de México, México) y polígonos (límite de localidades oficiales del municipio de Temoaya, Estado de México, México, así como el límite oficial del municipio de Temoaya, Estado de México, México). Lo anterior conservando las etiquetas correspondientes a: - nombre de calle (línea), - nombre de localidad (polígono) - superficie (polígono) y, - notas adicionales (en polígonos). Gracias. agradecería bastante su apoyo.

Saludos.
Benito Romualdo Palma Temoaya,
Temoaya, C.P. 50850, Estado de México, México.

Google translation by LWG:
Good afternoon. I kindly request your support for contribution advice of information to the OSM platform. which includes information on vector type: lines (nomenclature of official streets of the municipality of Temoaya, State of Mexico, Mexico) and polygons (limit of localities officials of the municipality of Temoaya, State of Mexico, Mexico, as well as the official limit of the municipality of Temoaya, State of Mexico, Mexico).
The above keeping the labels corresponding to: - street name (line),
- locality name (polygon)
- surface (polygon) and,
- additional notes (in polygons).

Thank you. I would greatly appreciate your support. Greetings.

We were approached in Spanish with a technical question how to get the data in.
Dermot contacted a prominent mapper in Mexico just before this meeting, explaining the situation and asking if they could engage with the person or whether there was a better point of contact within the Mexican community.

Suggestions:

Wait for the reply.
Could point the initial person who enquired at the LatAm group on community.osm.org https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/mx/65 if there is no reply.

Polar Electro

Background by LWG

My name is Tomi Lindholm and I'm working as a program manager at Polar Electro - a manufacturer of sports training computers, particularly known for developing the world's first wireless heart rate monitor. We are currently working on making OSM based map content visible in select capable Polar wrist device models but because of the limited capabilities of the devices, their form factor and usability considerations, we cannot fully comply with OpenStreetMap (and OpenMapTiles) attribution requirements. Therefore,we've worked on designing an approach which ensures best possible usability, is feasible for us to implement, and yet respects the attribution requirements in the best possible way. Please take a look at the attached material (PolarOfflineMaps_Attributions.pdf) for more details.I would like to kindly ask You whether:

1. OSMF would approve the way Polar intends to respect the attribution requirements?
2. OSMF would require any changes e.g. to the OSM attribution text?

If just possible I would highly appreciate an answer within a week's time so that we couldproceed with the implementation as soon as possible.

--> Kathleen to say we are reviewing, thank you for efforts

Followup:
Thanks a lot for your update. We'll stay tuned and look forward to hearing about the outcome of your discussion. Just to let you also know, we are still trying to meet the OpenMapTiles' one click/tab action requirement to show the attributions, with an attempt to waive the MapTiler's annual exception fee from our approach. In the material I shared the "Map info" screen with the "Map licenses" section at the bottom of the screen takes two clicks of the right center button to get to. We are still checking if we have a button we could use with a long press to get to the screen with the "Map licenses".

Previous discussion: 2023-05-15

On this particular case

Related to a sports-watch application.
They seem careful to do the right thing but had the issue of screen real-estate.
Their proposals for attribution seemed appropriate.
They’re suggesting putting attribution to their “about” box.
They don’t ask us to waive the requirements but asking about the interpretation of attribution.
We don’t know how often the device starts-up. For smartwatches it is every few months.
- Might be powered-up before every training.
- Sports-watches are different from other smart-watches.

On attribution on watches, small devices and apps

Apple watches with maps that and their usage of OSM.
- In the case of Polar, there are no other data providers.
Garmin devices with maps that use OSM data: When switching the device on, you usually get a mention of OSM at system start-up.** People would not see something similar to smart-watches.
Attribution via an (i) button, might be better (more readily available at any point of usage) than attribution shown at splash screen during start-up of devices that are powered-up twice per year.

On attribution guidelines

We had not articulated a particular approach for smart-watches.
The closest wording was related to the splash-screen.
The guidelines describe safe harbor - it is not necessarily the final word on what is compliance and meets the “reasonably calculated” requirement of the licence, but it has been approved by the board.
One could argue that the splash-screen option covers system start up.
For small screens, the suggestions for displaying the attribution are either on the splash screen during application or system start-up or showing and then hiding the attribution.

Other points during discussion

If they “cannot fully comply with OSM attribution requirements” (excerpt from their email), they cannot use OSM.
We’re not happy with the way Apple/Mapbox do attribution.

Suggestions

Point them to the attribution guidelines and a possible implementation of splash screens for an embedded device is what they can see on hand-held navigation devices, where attribution is shown on system start-up.
They could show attribution when the user opens the map, before they start the activity and then is hidden.
Make sure they understand that the attribution guidelines includes safe harbor terms and if they are in compliance, they should be ok. Mention that we can point them to specific language bit cannot tell them how to meet the specific requirements. If they cannot meet them, they cannot use the data.

Action item: Tom Lee to draft a reply for the LWG to review.

Any Other Business

Serbia case

Tom Lee has asked for a change to the pull request to reflect the date.

Suggestions:

Close this issue.
Discuss about developing a process for similar enquiries, as suggested by Paul Norman.

On defensive measures OSMF should take to protect the project from patent abuse - Request from the Board

Background by LWG

Are there defensive measures OSMF should take to protect the project from patent abuse?

This topic was proposed by the board after a patent was offered to OSMF by a community members.

Patent abuse: assertion of a patent by someone who claims to have a patent on something we are involved with.

Potential responses

Try to invalidate the patents / prove non-infringement.
Crowd-source defense money.

Potential preventative actions

Build a portfolio to counter-sue - not likely with OSM.
Engage in activism to make it impossible for someone to get a patent that would trouble us.
See if we can apply for membership/benefit for a defensive shield.

On likelihood of patent abuse

In case of OSM it is probably not an issue, but worth thinking about it.
Patent trolls are most likely to come after corporate users of the data, as they have money and makes coordinating defense much harder.
Most likely patent claim: automated data creation / capture processes for imageries.

Other points during discussion

Most US patent trolls wouldn't waste time on a non-profit without millions.
There was talk in the past about Bézier curves being used as part of data objects. Some proprietary operators have been doing it and might have patents at the time, that would make it difficult for us to do certain things.
50% of patents are invalid if you challenge them.
In Europe if you lose a patent case, you pay the cost to the other side, which is a reasonable incentive.

Mapilio - Request from iD developer

Background by LWG

Mapilio has recently emerged as an alternative to other streetview providers such as KartaView, Mapillary or Bing. They made a request to integrate their service into the iD editor [1] and generally seem to be very proactive towards supporting OSM with their data [2]. Recently, they adjusted the terms of use to include a clause about the "Right To Use For OpenStreetMap" [3].

One OSM community member had a concern about the legal wording of the terms, however: see [4] and their following comment. As you are much more qualified to evaluate this than I am, I would like you to ask for your assessment whether the Mapilio terms are clear enough for the service to be included in iD or whether changes would be required. Durak Ozcan from the Mapilio team is also in CC to this mail, in case any questions towards Mapilio would come up.

Thank you very much for your time,
Martin

[1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/9664
[2] https://mapilio.com/openstreetmap
[3] https://mapilio.com/terms
[4] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/9664#issuecomment-1568171418

> durak ozcan <ozcan@mapilio.com> hat am 31.05.2023 11:13 CEST geschrieben:
>
> Hello Martin
>
> Thank you in advance for your assistance and prompt response. We look forward to connecting with the appropriate representatives from the OSM Foundation and working together to ensure the compatibility of Mapilio's terms with OSM.
>
> We understand the importance of maintaining a transparent and compliant relationship with OSM, and we are committed to resolving any potential licensing issues promptly and responsibly. We greatly value the contributions made by the OSM community, and it is our aim to continue supporting the growth and development of OSM while adhering to the necessary legal requirements.

Suggestions:

Identify the objections.
- contacting the person who commented on GitHub about licence incompatibility might take long.
Invite them to an LWG meeting.
- Get what the real objections are, before inviting them.
Ask them to sign a CC waiver.
- We have for CCBY not for CCBYSA.

Decision: Suggest to them to modify the wording regarding OSM, to make it clearer.

They might not be aware of potential incompatibility.

Email suggesting drafting policy for adding sources to copyright page

Related to email by Paul Norman.

Seems like the question is about a way for the www.osm.org website maintainers to make a decision on whether attribution should be added to the copyright page, without having to bounce it to the LWG.

Our precedent is that if some entity gives us good data that the community wants and the entity wants credit in good faith, we make it happen.
We should not be discriminatory on when we do it or when we don’t.
We need to have a content-managed way to have the copyright page updated and kept current.
The issue is related to the recent Serbia case.

On LWG involvement

Manual review process:
- Advising on acceptability of the licence of the external data sets and decide whether the data can be used at all.
- The review process is complicated and there’s no point to create a checklist.
Addition of sources to the copyright page: It’s not on LWG to say how to make the process efficient.

On addition of sources to the copyright page

It would be preferable to have a way to update the content automatically, rather than go to the sources and ask them to update their content.
If it looks that mentioning the data provider is strictly legally necessary and that a mention on the changeset comments is not enough, then if there are any questions the maintainers can contact LWG.
Issue of scalability.

On having a policy

Suggestion to develop lessons from the recent Serbia case and future ones, and turn best practices into a policy.
These cases are rare, so we can decide on an ad hoc basis, instead of working on a policy and pre-planning for every situation.
We’re looking at the licences, no way to formalise this.

Jim Vidano disconnected.

Suggestion: Reply that the review process is so complicated that there is no need to create a check list - the process will involve manual review by the LWG in any such case.

Action item: Tom Lee to reply.

Next Meetings

2023 LWG meeting dates:

Monday Jul 10, 1700 UTC
Monday Aug 14, 1700 UTC
Monday Sep 11, 1700 UTC
Monday Oct 16, 1700 UTC
Monday Nov 13 – back to 1800 UTC
Monday Dec 11, 1800 UTC
Monday Jan 08 2024, 1800 UTC

US daylight savings start - Mar 12 2023
EU daylight savings start - Mar 26 2023
EU daylight savings end - Oct 29 2023
US daylight savings end - Nov 5 2023

Meeting adjourned 57' after the start.

Navigation menu

Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-06-12

Contents

Participants

Absent

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

Previous action items

Reportage and action item updates

DSA

Patent donation

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Trademarks – any updates?

Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update

Guillaume - Evidence of use in Philippines status – done?

Simon - Any new notices?

New trademark quick license for merchandise

Holdover items

How to pass tickets to the Operations Working Group (OWG), or does OWG have a template answer?

Where to forward user deletion requests?

Any way to block address in OTRS? Junk mail levels have become intolerable

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría

Polar Electro

Any Other Business

Serbia case

On defensive measures OSMF should take to protect the project from patent abuse - Request from the Board

Mapilio - Request from iD developer

Email suggesting drafting policy for adding sources to copyright page

Next Meetings