Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-11-13

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

Participants

• Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
• Dermot McNally
• Tom Hummel
• Tom Lee

Absent

• Jim Vidano
• Simon Hughes
• Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

• 2023-10-16 Approved

Previous action items

• 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.
• 2020-10-08 Simon Poole and Guillaume Rischard to look at the translation issue of the copyright policy page
• 2020-10-08 Jim Vidano to work on updating the privacy policy in relation to OSMF's use of a commercial CDN, and Kathleen Lu will have a look at it.
• 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
• 2022-09-15 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 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 Hughes' 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 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.
• 2023-07-10 Guillaume Rischard  to ask Grant regarding reducing the amount of spam on the privacy OTRS queue.
• 2023-07-10 Tom Lee offered to delete spam messages on the privacy OTRS queue.
• 2023-07-10 Dermot McNally to ask Guillaume about the contact details of the Latin American group, in order to contact them about Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría
• 2023-08-14 Kathleen Lu to write back that LWG voted this is okay. [Topic: Ticket#2023081110000064 — First party websites as sources]
• 2023-08-14 Kathleen Lu to contact Stamen and Stadia Maps [Topic: Email with complaint that OSM is used to display on a map supposed incidents where foreigners might have become perpetrators of crimes]
• 2023-09-11 Kathleen Lu to add the "template response to missing attribution reports" to the OTRS queue.
• 2023-09-11 Kathleen Lu to email OWG and ask them to add the following two templates to the OTRS group queues (LWG, DWG, MWG, etc): 1) template response to missing attribution reports 2) user deletion request template.
• 2023-09-11 Kathleen Lu to request tweak: By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and the [OpenStreetMap] Foundation’s [Contributor Terms]. [MapBuilder].
• 2023-09-11 Kathleen Lu to reply "Feel free to disregard." [Topic: From OWG - allegedly Russian email].
• 2023-09-11 Simon Hughes to ask Geolytica whether they have removed all the OSM data, and not just for TomTom.
• 2023-10-16 Tom Lee to create a draft statement by the next LWG meeting that could be used by the board to encourage governments to publish under CC0, ODbL, OGL or with a waiver to OSM. [Topic: Re-discuss the compatibility issue of ODbL and CC-BY?]
• 2023-10-16 Kathleen Lu to comment on the pull request, that the LWG voted and approved the addition [Topic: Request from Czech local chapter]

---

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 OpenStreetMap 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

Absent.

Simon - Any new notices

Absent.

---

Geolytica

Initial email to LWG Sorry if this ruins anyones Sunday.

My employer buys POI data from Geolytica. I took a look at it yesterday. It's full of OSM data, I've attached a small sample, grepped for "local knowledge". I noticed because "Source_URL" is basically a one to one copy of OSM. I can provide the full dataset if required, but this is probably the biggest ODBL violation ever. I have no idea how many Geolytica customers there are.

https://poidata.xyz/

Previous LWG discussions: 2023-10-16, 2023-09-11

Action item: Kathleen Lu to write back to the person who reported to LWG about Geolytica and mention that we got contacted by another company and they reported fixing the issue. Enquire whether the issue was fixed for them too.

Also wait to see if Simon Hughes has any information.

---

Moving OSMF to EU country (Belgium?) - update by Tom Hummel

Request to not minute this section.

Previous discussions:

• 2023-10-16, 2023-09-11
• 2021-12-09 - OTRS tickets with information about moving OSMF to EU

---

Ordnance Survey Ireland waiver - Update by Dermot McNally

• OSM IE not recently active on this issue due to their Annual General Meeting.
• Expected to proceed with seeking a waiver.
• Bigger discussion on CC licences.
• In Austria they had difficulty in obtaining a waiver.

Action item: Tom Lee to create a draft statement by the next LWG meeting that could be used by the board to encourage governments to publish under CC0, ODbL, OGL or with a waiver to OSM.

---

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2023110610000184 - Importing Austrian governmental data

Emails provided by LWG Bold as in the initial email.

Dear Roland!
Dear OSM-LWG!

(I'm writing in English since I'm unsure if the recipients of "legal-questions@osmfoundation.org" can understand German.)

Thank you for reaching out! I as the chairman of OpenStreetMap Austria as well as other members of the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association are excited by your proposal.

First I want to explain the organisational structure of OpenStreetMap, our point of view and also our limits:

OpenStreetMap is an NGO registered in the UK. It is administered by the "OpenStreetMap Foundation" (https://osmfoundation.org). There are multiple so-called "Local Chapters" of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in various countries of the world which serve as a point of contact. These local chapters are independent associations which have signed a memorandum of understanding with the OpenStreetMap Foundation. OpenStreetMap Austria ("OSM-AT") is the local chapter for Austria. Each local chapter performs activities on their own to support the OpenStreetMap, which have to be in accordance to the rules of the OpenStreetMap.

The problem at hand

The problem for the inconsistencies of the licenses are twofold:

• It is not 100% clear if the attribution of a single data provider as it is done by OpenStreetMap (mentioning the data provider on a collective wiki-page) is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the "BY" attribution. It might be, or might not be, so the recommendation is to play it safe and directly ask the data provider. This usually is no problem.
• But the second point, which you mentioned correctly, is the more complicated one: ODbL allows the DRM restricted redistribution as long as the same data can also be accessed by a way that is not DRM-restricted. Sticking to your example, this is not because of a specific software, but because of the delivery mechanism the software is using to obtain its (map-)data. In case of this OSM-App, the user has to pay to use the more comfortable way to just tap the "download map" button inside the app. The free alternative provided is to log into an ftp-Server and download the map-file manually onto the smartphone. The result is the same, the app itself is free in both cases.

I personally think that your line of argumentation is valid, but I am not the one to decide, more on that further below.

What happended so far:

The Austrian LocalChapter is voluntarily serving as a point of contact for questions, mediating conflicts, organizer of meetings and doing lots of promotional work.

There have been lots of discussions about the compatibility of CC-BY with the ODbL already (e.g. https://discuss.okfn.org/t/maintenance-and-future-of-the-open-data-commons-licences/4460/31 or https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/freigabe-des-osterreichischen-kataster-fur-osm/8235/9). This post from the year 2017 on the OpenStreetMap Foundations blog describes the still-standing "order" of how to deal with data licensed by CC-BY: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ This is: let the data-provider sign a waiver to explicitly allow the CC-BY licensed dataset to be incorporated into the OpenStreetMap.

Because this topic repeatedly spawned discussions within the Austrian OpenStreetMap community and the state of Austria started to adopt the CC-BY license as a base for all its OpenGovernmentData, the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association increased its efforts to to point out the incompatibilities of the two licenses and got into contact with the national OpenGovernmentData-Provider (Brigitte Lutz) to obtain the required legal waiver to make it possible to integrate Austrias OpenGovernmentData into OpenStreetMap. We (but also OpenStreetMap mappers individually which are not members of the Austrian OSM-Associaion) have been in contact with multiple public offices of which some even were directly asking us about how to make their OpenGovernmentData compatible with OpenStreetMap. But in the context of a nation-wide common licensing scheme, we were not able to obtain individual waivers.

The last two years the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association was trying to get this waiver (we provided templates) directly from the Austrian OpenGovernmentData board. By this all Austrian OpenGovernmentData would become compatible with OpenStreetMap.

Maybe the reason for the national OpenGovernmentData provider to stick to the CC-BY without additional waiver is the mention of the CC-BY license as a possibility in the european (EU) PSI-regulation (see Art.4, Abs.3 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2023.019.01.0043.01.DEU&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2023%3A019%3AFULL)? It seems like the CC-BY is interpreted as the only allowed option.

Where to go from there

Brigitte Lutz recommending a legal assessment seems to be the direct consequence of our efforts to asking for a signed waiver. A nation-wide (or even EU-wide?) solution would also be our preferred solution. If a legal assessment which can nullify inconsistencies between the two licenses can be created, this would be great news and the Austrian OpenStreetMap Assocciation supports this solution.

But it is not the Austrian OpenStreetMap association that can decide on this - for this reason I have included the OpenStreetMap Foundations legal contact ("legal-questions@osmfoundation.org") in the recipients of this email.

I want to ask the Licensing Working Group of the OpenStreetMap Foundation to pick up this topic and clarify if a legal assessment would make it possible to use Austrias CC-BY licensed OpenGovernmentData in OpenStreetMap?

Best regards,
Markus Mayr (ScubbX)
OpenStreetMap Austria

> Am 27.10.23 um 18:48 schrieb Roland Alton:
> Lieber Markus Mayr, > > ich engagiere mich seit vielen Jahren gemeinsam mit Alexander Baratsits für Creative Commons in Österreich. Wir wurden von Brigitte Lutz als OGD Koordinatorin angefragt, ob wir eine Art Stellungnahme / Gutachten verfassen können, das die Nutzung von Open Data in OSM prinzipiell erlaubt. > > Sie meinte: > >> Wir wollen vermeiden, dass OSM’ler immer wieder bei bei einzelnen Organisationen (datenverantwortlichen Stellen) anfragen – die meisten Hausjuristen lehnen es jedoch ab, eine schriftliche Zustimmung zu geben – wird als unverhältnismäßig bzw. nicht notwendig erachtet. >> >> Nun hätten wir die Idee, dass wir Euch beauftragen, ein solches Gutachten zu erstellen, das aussagt, dass die unter CC BY 3.0 AT bzw. CC BY 4.0 Lizenz veröffentlichten Daten in der OpenStreetMap im Rahmen der dort geltenden ODbL 1.0 Lizenz eingepflegt und benutzt werden dürfen. – Genau das, was OSM möchte und dass dies an sie adressiert und veröffentlicht wird. > > Ich denke wir müssten so vorgehen, dass wir uns von euch nochmal erkären lassen, welche downstream restrictions in der Praxis tatsächlich relevant wären, welche die ODbL vorsieht. Wir könnten dann versuchen zu argumentieren, dass eine Verwaltungseinheit, welche OD bereit stellt, im Sinne der Verbreitung der Open Data Informationen kein Problem mit einer Einschränkung der Verfügbarkeit haben muss und dass sie dies auch in anderen Kontexten üblicherweise zulassen. > > Es geht also darum zu klären, wann DRM o.ä. bei OSM Daten verwendet wird: > > ODbL: > >> If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures. > Geht es da zB um die OSM App, welche auch im Google Playstore gegen Gebühr landet, aber im F-Droid frei ist? > > Weil be CC-by haben wir ja: > >> No downstream restrictions . You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. > >Eine mögliche Schlussfolgerung wäre, dass nachdem es ja immer eine OSM Version ohne DRM geben wird, ist meine Möglichkeit auf das Material zuzugreifen prinzipiell ja nie eingeschränkt, ausser vielleicht auf einem bestimmten Device. > >Gerne auch einen Besprechungstermin - hier sind mögliche Zeitslots von mir https://faircloud.eu/nextcloud/index.php/apps/appointments/pub/S6HQ3XIFEQ%3D%3D/form > > > Gruss,
> Roland > > > Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > > *Von:* *EXTERN* Markus Mayr
> *Datum:* 5. Juli 2023 um 13:41:50 MESZ
> *An:* Lutz Brigitte
> *Kopie:* "OSM-AT Vorstand." > > > > Hallo Brigitte, > > *Idealversion:* > > Ich habe eine Vorlage zusammengestellt, die formal und inhaltlich das Optimum einer OSM-Erlaubnis darstellt. Diese liest sich dafür vielleicht aber auch etwas abschreckend, weil dort eine Paragraphennummer genannt wird. Unter dem ersten Punkt hätte ich vorgesehen, dass eine gewünschte Form der Attributierung eingetragen werden kann (dort wo "/[BEISPIELEINTRAGUNG_LAUT TITELKONVENTION_HIER_EINFÜGEN]/" steht), dies ist aber von uns aus nicht zwigend notwendig und kann auch gerne gelöscht werden. Ich kann mir allerdings vorstellen, dass ihr das gerne spezifizieren möchtet. /(/Anhang: /vorlage.docx)/ > > *Weniger spezifische Version:* > > Wenn dieser Vorschlag gar nicht geht, könnte auch ein signiertes (digial oder auch analog) Dokument genügen, welches einfach bestätigt, dass die data.gv.at Daten unter den Bedingungen und der Lizenz der OpenStreetMap für diese verwendet werden dürfen. Das hätte die selbe Aussage, ist aber weniger spezifisch und auf Nachfrage würde man dann wieder bei den beiden Punkten von meiner Vorlage landen. Dennoch habe ich eine Vorlage für diese weniger spezifische Version mit angehängt. /(/Anhang: /vorlage_unspezifisch.docx)/ > > Wir kommen mit beiden Varianten klar, finden die "Idealversion" aber besser, weil diese eindeutiger ist. Gerne kann ich noch Änderungen vornehmen und/oder wir sprechen hier in Salzburg nochmals darüber. > > lg, Markus

The Austrian local chapter is trying to figure out how to get Austrian government data into OSM because the Austrian government has adopted CC-BY.

Based on the emails, there might be possibility of further conversation with Brigitte Lutz, who seems to be in the Austrian government, coordinating discussions and is suggesting a legal assessment of the compatibility between CC-BY and ODbL.

On getting a waiver Unsuccessful on getting a waiver signed by local officials, probably because they would need to get it signed from many governmental agencies. That’s why they probably favour a blanket interpretation.

Suggestions

• Meet with Brigitte and talk about what a solution would be.
• Get a blanket assertion from Brigitte Lutz or somebody on the government side.
• Point them to the original blog-post on why CC-BY is incompatible.

Action item: Kathleen to email that German-speaking LWG members are happy to have a conversation with Brigette and discuss compatibility.

Future blogpost on licence compatibility

• Purpose of post: make known that CC-BY would be a problem, before people make a decision on the licence of datasets they will publish.
• Current state of blog-post by Tom Lee: good - it has been reviewed by several LWG members.

Blog-post: suggestions regarding licencing

• 1. Propose wording to governments specific to OSM, which they could include with their licence alongside their language about CC-BY 4.0 – this would be less complicated than signing a waiver.
  • This also provides forward compatibility in the case of the OSM moving away from ODbL.
• 2. Ask them to opt for CC0, as it is explicitly on the list of the licences they can choose according to the European guidance, and not mention the waiver.
• 3. If they can’t do CC0, ask them to waive incompatible provisions for OSM.
• 4. If this is also not acceptable, ask them to waive the DRM provision of CC-BY and say that a centralised attribution source is acceptable.

The governmental agencies in Germany

• are required to open the datasets by law.
• have few resources.
• don’t have access to lawyers.

It might be difficult to convince them to choose another licence or waive some rights for OSMF, as other people might demand similar waivers.

On governmental agencies that have already released datasets under CC-BY

• They might be reluctant to change from CC-BY to CC0, even if it is listed in the guidance.
• Option 1 above might be easier for them – nothing will need to be signed.

Other points mentioned during discussion

• ODbL is more restrictive than CC-BY.
• Waiving some terms of ODbL makes it less restrictive/more lenient, and thus can be used for licensing datasets according to the guidance.
• The main reason we can’t use CC-BY is due to DRM, not due to attribution.
• Assessment by German law firm regarding DL-DE/BY and OdbL (“Datenlizenzen für Open Government Data Rechtliches Kurzgutachten”. For the Ministry of Economics, State of Northrine-Westphalia.

Action items

• Tom Hummel to read https://open.nrw/system/files/media/document/file/opennrw_rechtl_gutachten_datenlizenzen_lowres_web.pdf https://open.nrw/verwendung-von-open-data-lizenzen
• Tom Hummel to contact Falk, a lawyer from the German local chapter, and get his opinion on the general stance of mid-level governmental agencies. Estimated to have a response by early December.
• Dorothea Kazazi to create an account on blog.osm.org for Kathleen Lu.
• Tom Lee to clean the draft blog-post and it will get shared with the board and the Communications Working Group.

---

Next Meetings

2023 LWG meeting dates:
Monday Dec 11, 1800 UTC
Monday Jan 08 2024, 1800 UTC

---