Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-07-10
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
10 July 2023, 18:00 UTC
- Dermot McNally
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Jim Vidano
- Tom Lee
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
- Tom Hummel
- Simon Hughes
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 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 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 redirect to the right person.
- 2022-10-13 Guillaume Rischard to take the Ticket#2022100310000013 issue to the board (related to legal consequences for “unlicensed surveying”)
- 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).
- 2023-03-06 Kathleen Lu to write back to Iiro Laiho (Inquiry re Finnish satellite imagery) and have them clarify that the attribution is ok. The LWG to update the attribution.
- 2023-04-03 Guillaume Rischard to ask Grant Slater regarding passing LWG tickets to OWG.
- 2023-04-03 Dermot McNally to find wording that makes it clear to the recipients of the love letters that the letters come from mappers.
- 2023-04-03 Guillaume Rischard to send the Attribution Guidelines (Case of German Federal Mapping Agency buried attribution)
- 2023-04-03 Tom Lee to reply to the OSM Serbia community on GitHub asking for additional details (Ticket#2023030810000178 - Serbian Geodata)
- 2023-04-03 Dermot McNally to put Benito Romualdo Palma Temoaya in touch with the Mexican community (Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría)
- 2023-05-15 Tom Lee to add clarity to the website ticket https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/3959 and potentially modify the pull request. Can make a generic statement that "OSM data is continuously edited and please check edit history", linking to the OSM wiki article about changesets.
- 2023-05-15 Dermot McNally to write a template reply for emails we receive regarding missing attribution and send it to Kathleen.
- 2023-05-15 Kathleen Lu to create an OTRS template with Dermot's template reply regarding missing attribution.
- 2023-05-15 Simon Hughe’s trademark person to draft a physical merchandise template. Existing templates on domain names and State of the Map conference can be used.
- 2023-05-15 Kathleen Lu to write to the person that contacted the LWG regarding OSM merchandise that the Board is considering the issue.
- 2023-06-12 Guillaume Rischard to ask Grant Slater about how to block addresses in OTRS.
- 2023-06-12 LWG to suggest to Mapilio to modify the wording regarding permission to OSM, to make it clearer.
- 2023-06-12 Tom Lee to draft a reply to Polar for the LWG to review [Ticket#2023050510000189]
- 2023-06-12 Tom Lee to reply to Paul Norman regarding the suggestion to draft a policy for adding sources to the copyright page
Reportage and action item updates
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
- Ticket#2022120510000177 — Club Vosgien complaint – any reply?
Trademarks – any updates?
Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update
Simon - Any new notices?
Where to forward user deletion requests?
I have been forwarding to DWG’s queue, but perhaps that is not right?
Will create a new template referencing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#How_can_I_close_my_account?
Any way to block address in OTRS? Junk mail levels have become intolerable
Awaiting Guillaume’s report. Alternatively, any volunteer to clear the Privacy queue of spam on a weekly basis? It’s 90% spam, and a lot of it in German. Would be a lot faster for a German speaker to clear.
Resolution: Blocks should be requested to OWG at https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/
Any Other Business
Request from the Board: Are there defensive measures OSMF should take to protect the project from patent abuse?
[Any further discussion?]
Request from ID developer: Mapilio
|Background by LWG
|Kathleen wrote back:
We looked at your terms, and the first sentence re OSM in the terms is good ("We support OpenStreetMap and allow you and others to use the Mapilio Services, and all the data and content in them, to create, edit and add content to OpenStreetMap"), but there is a question of what the second sentence "You must follow the terms of each entity when you contribute to OpenStreetMap" is supposed to mean, and whether it limits the first sentence. We think you have the best intentions here, but the language could be viewed ambiguously.
We think it would probably be most helpful if you could adjust your terms slightly to make the permission re OpenStreetMap more specific, as that would likely reassure users. Mapillary's terms might offer a model: Rights for OpenStreetMapYou have the right to use any Mapillary image for editing and deriving metadata for the purpose of contributing content to OpenStreetMap. Such metadata could be street numbers, road signs, street names, building descriptions, road conditions etc. Derived metadata may be published directly to OpenStreetMap under the OpenStreetMap Foundation contributor terms. Mapillary images are available under an open license (CC BY-SA).Mapillary appreciates attribution for derived metadata, for example using the tag source=Mapillary or by linking to mapillary.com. This is also a useful way for us to track and understand what type of data and images are most useful for OSM, and build tools accordingly.
If you have other language you would prefer, or if you have any questions about terms, you (and Mapilio's attorney) are welcome to join our next meeting, July 10, 17:00 UTC, on video - https://osmvideo.cloud68.co/user/gui-ztm-dqh
- Kathleen responded and offered language for their use, with Mapillary being the closest match to their situation.
- As of now, there has been no reply or response.
Template response to missing attribution reports
|For review and agreement
Thanks for getting in touch with regarding a failure to correctly attribute OpenStreetMap. As you can imagine, with LWG being an all-volunteer group, we lack the capacity to deal with all cases. In most instances, we think that it's easiest for mappers themselves to make the first contact with violators, especially as mappers have more local knowledge of the use. Many do this very successfully. As a mapper, you are one of the authors of the copyright work that we are looking to protect, so you are fully entitled to make these contacts.
In order to make it easier for you to deal with such cases, we have prepared template content for emails to those who may be neglecting their obligations. These are designed to allow you to pick and choose considered blocks of text that respectfully and accurately express what needs to be improved. You can find this content at: <link - did we not put this on the wiki yet? I can't find it, but can add it if needed>.
In limited high-stake cases, LWG can become more directly involved. Please let us know if there are special circumstances.
Discussion on where to place the template "love letter" (on the OSMF website or elsewhere).
- The attribution guidelines are on the OSM Foundation website.
- The other templates are on the OSM Foundation website: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
- Add a link from the OSM wiki to the template on the OSM Foundation website, to make it more discoverable.
- We can offer multiple versions of the template.
Other points mentioned during the discussion
- Some users have decided to update the import guidelines, changing where the discussion can take place.
- Mateusz has been trying to create his own template for cases of missing attribution. He was invited to this meeting.
Action item: Dermot to check where to put the template and where to link it from.
On indicating that individual mappers can claim intellectual property rights
We seem to say that individual Mappers have a right to assert intellectual property rights, which, are exclusively reserved for the OSMF.
- Trying to say be empowered, because you are a stakeholder.
- There might be people contributing to the project in other ways rather than mapping, so they may not technically be copyright holders.
- Main message: Everyone has the capacity to take action.
On IP rights
- IP rights is a broader term than copyright.
- The copyright in the individual edits remains with the individual mappers.
- The copyright as a whole belongs to OSMF to the extent that it exists, and the database rights belong to OSMF.
- Mentioning IP rights, would include both copyright and database rights.
Other points mentioned during the discussion
- The letter only refers to copyright and it only refers to the individual level.
- People adding emotionally charged or strongly worded additional comments to pre-polupalted form letters.
- We include text to say that frequently the mapping framework provides an automated method for the correct addition of attribution.
On companies providing map-services based on OSM data and their customers
- Companies who have been buying maps based on OSM are receiving emails and online criticism from contributors, causing confusion and noting that this never happened with Google.
- Map-service providing companies could educate their customers regarding attribution to OSM.
- Appropriate attribution is set as a default in all of Mapbox software and it's part of the onboarding documentation.
- In some cases overly creative engineers fail to communicate their decisions to their superiors, resulting in the bosses receiving unexpected emails.
- Replace "copyright holder" with "contributor to project, having a stake in its success".
- Add language that helps the reader understand the purpose of attribution and our goals with the communication: enhance the success of OSM project.
Decision: The LWG to add feedback in the next couple of days and determine concensus on the Signal channel before proceeding.
Afterwards Dermot McNally to:
- add love letter to https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates or other page on OSMF wiki
- and replace https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution/Example_email
|Background by LWG
|I never have been involved with OSMF wiki so I am not sure who maintains it. If you wantme to fix it tell me how to get an account. ;-) If not, please do fix it. At least https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#1._USING_OSM_DATA links to nonexistant:
It would be prudent to check dead links wiki-wise and hold a fixin' session. :-)
Sidenote: do I observe right that OSMF tileserver _tiles_ do NOT have any licensewhatsoever,apart from the vaguely worded Tile Usage Policy athttps://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/ ?Tileserver attribution widget say "©OSM contributors" but links to Copyright and Licensepage which, in turn, talks about the ODbL of the DB, not the license of the tiles.
I kind of remember they used to be under CC-BY-SA a long time ago, but all evicenceseems to have vanished in the mist of time.
Reply by Kathleen:
Kind regards Kathleen Lu
Fixed by Tom Hummel.
Queries to legal-questions
Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría
|Background by LWG
|(I think this person is asking how to contribute Mexican geodata???)
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.
Thank you. I would greatly appreciate your support. Greetings.
Dermot to make connection
Dermot OSM messaged an apparently prominent mapper there, didn't get any response.
Action item: Dermot to ask Guillaume about the contact details of the Latin American group.
Polar - Ticket#2023050510000189
|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?
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
Draft letter by Tom Lee:
You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated tomake any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed tothe Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, DerivativeDatabase, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is availableunder this License.
The Attribution Guideline provides a number of examples by which this standard may be met.
While these safe harbour scenarios may not exactly describe the circumstances of your application, they stillprovide useful indication of the OSMF’s perspective on the matter. You may find the discussionof splash screens or temporarily-appearing attribution particularly relevant, given the button press, screen space, and connectivity limitations you described.I hope this is helpful. If review of the Guideline gives you further ideas on specific attribution approaches, please feel free to write back, as we may beable to offer additional perspective on it.
You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed tothe Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License.
The Attribution Guidelines provides a number of examples by which this standard may be met.
While these safe harbour scenarios may not exactly describe the circumstances of your application, they still provide useful indication of the OSMF’s perspective on the matter. You may find the discussion of splash screens or temporarily-appearing attribution particularly relevant, given the button press, screen space, and connectivity limitations you described.I hope this is helpful. If review of the Guideline gives you further ideas on specific attribution approaches, please feel free to write back, as we may be able to offer additional perspective on it.
|Previous discussion: 2023-05-15, 2023-06-12
- Tom circulated a draft letter to them
- Kathleen added comments.
- Use British spelling.
- Include that if they come up with a creative approach that fulfills the attribution requirements, to notify the LWG.
- Ask how often do users boot the Polar Watch (e.g. when running out of battery/once per week/once per workout).
- Add the URL of the Attribution guidelines.
Action item: Tom Lee to add links, send the email and cc LWG.
from talk list: ODbl concerns - Department of Transport and Planning, Australia
|Background by LWG
Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our foundational mapping data source. We are confident that this is a decision will be of value to both ourselves improving the management of the networks (road, Train, Bus, tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the state.
Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating that extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant validated dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal. Our state government has a strong commitment to sharing all data openly. We are currently developing that process and should be in production by the end of the year.
Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl license requirement to "Share alike". You know these companies; Google, Here, Tomtom and Apple.
The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;
I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and improve OSM.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
[Kathleen wrote back]
(Taking this off-list, but including Andrew Harvey who is very familiar with Australian government interactions with OSM.)
I'm Kathleen Lu, the chair of the OSMF Legal/Licensing Working Group (cced).
Welcome! There are a number of considerations for governments who want to work with OSM data.
At a very high level, it sounds like you want to use OSM as a base for data that you add, and then want to release that data in a way that is maximally usable by others, including TomTom, Apple, and Google.
Regarding the concerns from your distribution partners, can you share the specific concerns that they have expressed? I can hazards a guess, but as Andrew alluded to, there is a difference between them wanting to A) publicly display the data you distribute and B) modify the data you distribute.
(Also, you may benefit from chatting with other government officials who work with OSM data, some of whom are on OSMUS Slack. You might try joining: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ )
No reply to us yet.
Field Name data deriving in part from Ordnance Survey Ireland
|Background by LWG
|Amanda McCann said I better ask you for help, because she wasn't too sure about the problem. The situation is the following: My local county council started the "Kilkenny Field Names Project" in 2010. (Don't bother looking it up; the link won't get you anywhere important.) They collected field names in the local rural communities using Ordnance Survey maps. Around 2020 or so, the facilitator for their project stepped down, many paper maps still remain in the communities or are in some archive and not added to their ArcGIS map. They have decided not to pursue it any further, because there is also no funding. The problem for a potential data consumer is that firstly, the project is incomplete, and secondly, their data on ArcGIS is not searchable and thus fairly useless. The names are hidden behind POIs on a map, so in order to see the name, one has to click on the dot. Allegedly, according to press reports, they have collected 24,000 names, but I doubt that. There are definitely not that many on their ArcGIS map (which is btw difficult to find).
Now where OSM could come in: We have recently founded a group, the Kilkenny History Mappers, and I was wondering whether we as that group or OSM Ireland could offer to the council to finish the project by transferring their paper maps onto OSM, potentially also the ones already on the ArcGIS system, if the fields were actually drawn rather than POIs put in the middle of the field, because field boundaries might have changed from the naming to what is there now. As I stated above, they used prints of Ordnance Survey Ireland maps which are copyrighted and they had a license for them, but the data we want is only the outlines of fields, the field names and potential landmarks people might have hand drawn/ marked into the map, like lime kilns or wells, where the name is "Kiln Field" or "Well Field". I know they were asked to do that, but I don't know if any of the surveyors actually did. It would be great name:etymology data. (I was not involved in the project; I went straight for OSM.)
How would a waiver from Ordnance Survey Ireland need to be formulated to give us the right to either scan and mapwarp the modified maps or transfer by hand onto OSM? Something including "anything manually added", but also field boundaries, just in case they didn't trace them by hand would be good. I presume CC0 license for that manually added data would be best?
Kind regards, and keep up the good work!
Discussion on the challenges in obtaining and utilising Ordnance Survey Ireland data.
Anne-Karoline Distel is on the OSM Ireland board, as Dermot. The topic has not come up formally in the OSM Ireland board meetings.
Ordnance Survey Ireland
- Government owned corporation with a mandate to monetize their assets.
- It is quite easy for Ordnance Survey Ireland to claim that because of the fact that it's in their ownership as a corporation, it's not quite the same as government data.
OSM Ireland and Ordnance Survey Ireland
- OSM Ireland has been using old scanned and rectified maps by Ordnance Survey Ireland that have fallen off copyright.
- OSM Ireland has not asked so far to use copyrighted data from Ordnance Survey Ireland.
- Last conversations with people from Ordnance Survey Ireland was before the circular (see below).
- Plan to reach out to Ordnance Survey Ireland, presenting the potential mutual benefits and clarifying our intention to collaborate.
- 2019 - EU directive.
- 2021 - third version of Irish law incorporating the EU directive - binds OSI.
- late 2021 - circular https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/212217/bd5cd126-1954-4d65-8b3d-dd5a8398b453.pdf#page=null sent to Irish government departments that tells them how to implement this law, suggesting CC By 4.0 as the default license and not being more restrictive than that.
On precedent: the other EU jurisdictions will have made their decision based on EU law, but their decisions won't be case law in an Irish context.
Suggestions for communication
Mention to Ordnance Survey Ireland that
- they did this huge amount of work and it's not getting used.
- we would like to use the data, as imperfect and incomplete as it is.
- we will make sure everyone gets to know how good the work is and how useful they were.
- Propose dual licensing.
Other points mentioned
- It is something that has been used elsewhere in the EU and even something.
- The OSMF has provided financial support to organisations trying to get open data.
- Strong tradition in Ireland of politicians offering assistance but being countered by their civil servants who explain why things can't be done.
- Challenge is to find common ground between their profit-oriented activities and our objectives.
Decision: Dermot to raise the issue at the next OSM Ireland board meeting, providing a summary of this discussion.
2023 LWG meeting dates:
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 65' after the start.