Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-04-08

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
8 April 2024, 18:00 UTC

Participants

Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
Dermot McNally
Simon Hughes (until ~43’ after start)
Tom Hummel
Tom Lee

Absent

Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
Jim Vidano (retired)

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

2024-03-04 Approved

Previous action items

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?

Reportage

Jim’s retirement

OpenLandMap

~~Guillaume to write love letter~~.

Attribution present behind (i) button if you scroll down – not up to our standards, but bigger fish to fry.

Ticket#2024011610000011 – love letter candidate

Jim Vidano sent a letter to Casa - https://www.casaseneleste.com/casa-con-piscina-en-pinares/185488823

OSMF transfer plan scope of work quote from law firm

Minutes and action item redacted, after request during the May meeting.

Queries from OSMF

Query from HERE forwarded by the Board

Initial email to LWG

I wanted to reach out as an NNG webinar was recently shared with me, and the OSM aspects of it have us wondering how this offering works as it relates to ODbL, share alike, etc.

Simon Hughes and Tom Lee acknowledged that they have conflicts of interest, as they work for companies which are competitors to HERE.

Slides from the presentation were circulated to LWG. Not a lot of detail provided but they acknowledge ODbL and limitations.
The question seems to be how can one create a map using proprietary and ODbL data.
The LWG does not know the choices made by the company in the background.
They seem to ask for advice.

Suggestions

Ask them to join an LWG meeting.
Suggest to them to hire attorneys.

Action item: Kathleen to write back that based on the slides, NNG seems to try to adhere to ODbL and the community guidelines.

SotM quick licence requirements - From Mateusz Konieczny

Initial email to LWG

The requirements for a SotM Quick Licences are on https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/SOTM_Quick_Licence

There are stated requirements for applicants to submit materials for quality control that in practice have proven redundant and are not enforced. We'd like to tidy up the requirements by omitting part of the line on Quality Control and in.

Quality Control: You will provide samples or mock-up of flyers, posters, slide presentations, screenshots of digital correspondence when you email this licence to the OSMF. You agree to promptly respond to the OSMF’s requests for additional information or to an inspection of your use.

remove:
“You will provide samples or mock-up of flyers, posters, slide presentations, screenshots of digital correspondence when you email this licence to the OSMF.” Could you please review this request and respond in support or against the proposal?

Kathleen's reply:
We should not remove this requirement entirely, as that could lead to arguments of "naked licensing", but I agree that generally, when a license request is first submitted to us, this type of material is not available and is usually not submitted.

I suggest we make it an "upon request" requirement ("Quality Control: You agree to promptly provide samples or mock-up of flyers, posters, slide presentations, screenshots of digital correspondence, or other conference materials using the OSMF Marks upon request by OSMF. You also agree to update usage of the OSMF Marks upon OSMF's reasonable request.

The board will have to do a circular.

Action item: Dorothea was asked to put the topic on the board’s agenda.

Queries to legal-questions

To privacy@ from CNIL (French data protection authority)

Initial email to LWG

Madame, Monsieur, La Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) a reçu une réclamation, le 13 novembre 2022, à l’encontre de votre organisme, relative à l’utilisation d’un ou plusieurs outils mis à disposition par des sociétés américaines impliquant des transferts de données à caractère personnel vers les Etats-Unis, sur le site web « openstreetmap.org ». Plus particulièrement, le plaignant indique que la société aurait recours au réseau de diffusion de contenu de la société étasunienne Fastly, ce qui engendrerait des transferts de données à caractère personnel.

A cet égard, je vous rappelle qu’au titre de l’article 44 du Règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD), dans le cas où des données à caractère personnel collectées à partir d’un outil utilisé sur votre site web seraient transférées vers un pays tiers (c’est-à-dire hors de l’Union européenne) il vous appartient d’encadrer juridiquement ces transferts. Le chapitre V du RGPD (articles 44 et suivants) prévoit ainsi différents outils permettant aux organismes d’assurer un niveau de protection des données transférées vers un pays tiers, qui soit substantiellement équivalent à celui garanti au sein de l’Union européenne (UE) :

1.       Les décisions d’adéquation de la Commission européenne (art. 45 du RGPD) constituent le premier outil juridique d’encadrement, dans la mesure où elles sont prises sur la base d’un examen global de la législation en vigueur dans un Etat, sur un territoire ou applicable à un ou plusieurs secteurs déterminés au sein de cet Etat ;
2.       En l’absence d’une telle décision, des « garanties appropriées » (art. 46 du RGPD), constituées pour la majorité de décisions des autorités de contrôle, sont prises à la lumière des engagements des organismes concernés ;
3.       En l’absence de telles « garanties appropriées », le transfert peut enfin être réalisé par dérogation à ces outils globaux d’encadrement, dans des situations particulières et des conditions spécifiques (art. 49 du RGPD) qui sont présentées sur le site de la CNIL (https://www.cnil.fr/fr/transferts-de-donnees-hors-ue-derogations-pour-des-situations-particulieres). Or, en ce qui concerne les décisions d’adéquation (article 45 du RGPD), la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) a invalidé la décision 2016/1250 relative à l'adéquation de la protection assurée par le bouclier de protection des données entre l’Union européenne et les États-Unis (Privacy shield) par un arrêt du 16 juillet 2020.

Ainsi, à compter de cette date, si les outils utilisés sur votre site web engendraient des transferts de données à caractère personnel vers les Etats-Unis encadrés par cette décision d’adéquation, ils n’étaient pas conformes au RGPD, sauf à ce que des mesures supplémentaires permettent de protéger les données de l’application des lois américaines alors en vigueur (https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-04/edpb_recommendations_202001vo.2.0_supplementarymeasurestransferstools_fr.pdf).

Cependant, une nouvelle décision d’adéquation est intervenue le 10 juillet 2023 (https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/eu-us-data-transfers_fr?etrans=fr). La Commission européenne constate que les États-Unis assurent un niveau de protection substantiellement équivalent à celui de l’UE. En conséquence, les organismes soumis au RGPD peuvent désormais transférer des données à caractère personnel vers les organismes certifiés qui s’engagent, annuellement et publiquement, à adhérer à ce cadre légal.
Les organismes européens exportant des données doivent cependant s’assurer que :
l’organisme destinataire de ces données figure sur la liste des organismes habilités à y procéder. Cette liste est mise à disposition sur le site du Département du Commerce des États-Unis (https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/s/participant-search);
les finalités pour lesquelles les transferts ont lieu entrent dans le périmètre de la certification octroyée par le Département du Commerce des États-Unis ;
leur politique de confidentialité est mise à jour afin de mentionner ces éléments.
A défaut, un autre instrument de transfert doit être utilisé, comme des clauses contractuelles types
. À toutes fins utiles, je vous invite à consulter le site web de la CNIL, sur lequel figurent des informations utiles s’agissant des conditions dans lesquelles les organismes peuvent transférer des données à caractère personnel hors de l’Union Européenne (https://www.cnil.fr/fr/transferer-des-donnees-hors-de-lue).
Je vous indique que le présent courrier n’appelle pas de réponse de votre part.

Je vous prie d'agréer, Madame, Monsieur, l'expression de mes salutations distinguées.

Are the assertions factually true? This fastly ad says it’s used for US users
no response needed

The LWG has received correspondence from CNIL, the French Data Protection Authority, following a report received from an individual regarding concerns over potential movement of their personal data outside the territory. The reported communication does not specify the nature of the personal data involved or the identity of the individual making the report. CNIL's communication appears to be informative in nature, indicating that no response from us is required at this stage. This is the first time the LWG has been contacted by a regulatory body. A member of the LWG reviewed the email in French and CNIL's reply seems to suggest that the situation is likely deemed acceptable.

On Fastly and Privacy shield

The OWG some years ago informed the LWG that they were going to start testing Fastly in the US.
Our privacy policy discloses that we’re using a CDN.
Privacy Shield went down like a couple of years ago.
Fastly is in the new data privacy framework program and probably in the process of switching to the Privacy shield successor – approvals are being sent out in the last couple of months.

Links shared:
1. https://www.fastly.com/blog/how-openstreetmap-uses-our-modern-cdn-to-push-near-instant-updates-worldwide
2. https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/s/participant-search
3. https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/list - Fastly included

Croatia open licence

Initial email to LWG

We got a breakthrough in Croatia regarding state owned data. It was"purchasable" with restrictions only before, but now it is availableunder Open License. Can we use the data as is or do we need some extrasteps like getting explicit written permission?I created a thread on the forum with the links to the laws and licenses,so others with knowledge about that topic can be up to date and to chipin their knowledge. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dgu-spatial-data-under-open-license-compatible-with-odbl/110162

English translation: https://prod-data.gov.hr/en/open-license

Note to community: “include the date of its last update;” in changesets

Some of their requirements:

Attribution
Date of its last update.
Any amendments, redesign, or changes must be indicated as such.

Suggestions

Add them to the contributors page.
Recommend that people should mention the version of the core datasets in their changesets.

Action item: Kathleen to reply.

Assessment of York Open Data licence Ticket#2024030710000016

Initial email to LWG

The Regional Municipality of York has a wealth of open data including high-quality aerial imagery from 2022, addresses including exact house numbers and postal codes, and building footprints. But, being in Canada, data under unreviewed licenses like this cannot be used in OpenStreetMap.York Region’s open data catalogue: https://insights-york.opendata.arcgis.com/searchYork Region Open Data License (I want LWG to review this): https://insights-york.opendata.arcgis.com/documents/york-region-open-data-licence

I have read the license myself and it appears to allow worldwide commercial use without attribution, so it’s probably worth LWG’s time to review it.

Attributing them is optional. Could credit them but we don’t have to and they might ask us not to.
Similar wording to the other Canadian licences.

Suggestion: List the licence for awareness to the community.

Action item: Kathleen to reply.

Simon had to disconnect ~ 43’ after start.

University of Washington GIS data and layers and university policies Ticket#2024032010000456

Initial email to LWG

My university produces and publicly posts useful GIS information, so I asked them for permission to incorporate the data into OSM. I received the below reply:> The GIS data and layers we make available to the public can be used to updateOpenStreetMap (OSM). The University of Washington should be credited on the contributors page for data which is sourced from the University along with the following disclaimer:>> Any data classified as public information was created in support of the University’s mission and as such is provided as is. The University of Washington makes no claims as to its fitness of use in third party websites or applications and the University does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of these datasets. Use of this data is done at one’s own risk.>> In addition, the University has an administrative policy statement (https://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/APS/02.04.html which governs dataprotection policies associated with UW data. As outlined in that policy statement the University provides this information for use in OSM under the following terms:

The users of this information agree to remain in compliance with applicable information security and privacy laws and University policy.Is this compatible with use in OSM? I examined the linked policy statement and see no license-incompatible restrictions. My understanding is that the generic requirement to comply with privacy law is compatible.I read the compatibility FAQ (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Licences_that_forbid_specific_use) and am emailing to ask because I believe this is a compatible edge case, but want to confirm.

Probably there is not going to be any data relevant to the University data security policy.
We can redact information.
The risk profile low, but the language is very broad.
“Users of this information” probably refers to people in the University of Washington and not OSM.

Action item: Kathleen to reply that it is fine.

Assessment of Open Government License – Toronto To legal@

Initial email to LWG

I am asking if the Licensing Working Group can assess Open Government License – Toronto for OpenStreetMap use and compatibility with the ODBL.

License link can be found below. https://open.toronto.ca/open-data-license/

Looks ok. Seemed like the standard Canada OGL

Action item: Kathleen to reply.

Microsoft and European Commission Ticket#2024031210000328

Emails to LWG

Hi LWG,

I am following up on my email below. Since this matter is rather time sensitive, If I don’t hear anything to the contrary from the team by end of day on Friday (March 29), I will go ahead and tell the team that they can rely on the email consent from the EC.

Thanks,
Kari

From: Kari Annand
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 10:51 AM
To: legal-questions@osmfoundation.org
Cc: Julia Abelev (CELA) <***@microsoft.com>
Subject: FW: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Hello OSM Legal Working Group,

I am an attorney who works with Microsoft on many of their mapping projects, including its utilization of OSM. (I believe I’ve spoken with a few of you in the past.) Recently the maps team approached the European Commission with the standard CC-BY waiver form in order to enable the OSM community to utilize the Global Human Settlement Layer data located here: Global Human Settlement - Download - European Commission (europa.eu). After much back and forth with the European Commission’s attorney, we have reached a bit of a stalemate. According to the below, he believes the formal waiver is not necessary and states further that obtaining such a formal, signed waiver would require a negotiation between the EC and OSM.

We certainly do not want to make assumptions on behalf of OSM and the OSM community regarding the validity of the “pseudo-consent” below. Could we ask the LWG to assist in the determination as to whether the below is sufficient to qualify as a waiver?

Thank you in advance,
Kari

From: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 7:31 AM
To: Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>; Kari Annand <***@salawpllc.com>; Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>
Cc: ***@ec.europa.eu; KEMPER Thomas <***@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: RE: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Dear Kari and Nemanja,

Thank you for your patience, and I apologize for the delay in my response, as it was necessary to engage in additional internal discussions with my superiors.

I understand the importance of obtaining explicit permission, as well as the reference to the CC-BY data usage page (here).

Regarding the waiver you have requested (also here: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates/Cover_letter_and_waiver_template_for_CC_BY_4.0 ) in relation to the CC-BY license that applies to the GHSL-data, I have reviewed Section 5 of the CC-BY license, which states that no additional terms or conditions may be imposed on the Licensed Material if doing so restricts the exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. I understand that the ODbL allows data users to apply technical protection measures to their own works while also providing an unrestricted version of the underlying database.

In my view, it is precisely the way of the flexibility of the CC-BY license that allows for the making of derivative works using CC-BY licensed material. However, this is not for the Licensor but a requirement for the OSM community to carefully consider using the “parallel distribution” to meet this flexibility of the CC-BY legal text.

While the ODbL does not require parallel distribution when distributing Works, the possibility should be taken heed of. The ODbl, as well as the communicated position on the pages surrounding it, has the inherent purpose of reminding users of the proper application of the used licenses. Regarding the matter of attribution, I would like to share that, from my experience representing the Central IP Service in data-specific cases, proper attribution is always considered a matter of context, and from where to me it seems rather unsurprising that people have suggested that OSM’s indirect attribution mechanism already fulfils the requirements of CC BY 4.0, as discussed on https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ .

I hope you can appreciate our flexible approach, where only appropriate measures are asked for, as per https://commission.europa.eu/legal-notice_en : “reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and changes are indicated”.

Regarding the need for a signed version of the document you sent, I am unable to provide this as it would require pre-approval and formal collaboration with OSM. However, this would only be necessary if a different license than the CC-BY license provided or a waiver of any rights owned by the EU were requested.

It is my understanding that no additional rights are being requested. I believe that the explanations provided here should clarify our understanding and alleviate any concerns about the European Union's position on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any concerns or need for clarification. I am available to discuss these points further.

Thank you for your explanations, and I wish you a good day!

Chris

From: Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Kari Annand <***@salawpllc.com>; Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>; WIERSMA Chris (JRC) <***@ec.europa.eu>; KEMPER Thomas (JRC-ISPRA) <***@ec.europa.eu>Cc: JRC GHSL <***@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: RE: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Dear Chris and Thomas,

I’m following up on our ask to get an waiver to use your dataset to enrich the OSM. Do you have any updates regarding the explicit permission?I hope Kari, our Legal representative, provided enough clarity why it is necessary to get this permission from you.

Thank you in advance,
Nemanja

From: Kari Annand <***@salawpllc.com>
Sent: petak, 26. januar 2024. 20:17
To: Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>; WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu>; Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>
Cc: ***@ec.europa.eu; KEMPER Thomas <***@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Hi all,

Sincerest apologies for the delay in responding, and lovely to meet you both, Chris and Thomas.

Thanks for the excellent questions, Chris. I am not the lawyer for OpenStreetMap, of course, but I can provide my understanding. (They also have an excellent blog post on the topic here: Use of CC BY 4.0 licensed data in OpenStreetMap | OpenStreetMap Blog)

OpenStreetMap is licensed under the Open Database License (ODbL), which is mostly compatible with Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY). The CC-BY, of course, requires attribution of the source of the data “in any reasonable manner.” When rendered, an work containing OSM data is required to cite “© OpenStreetMap contributors,” which links to the OSM copyright site. Within the copyright site is a link to the full contributors page: Contributors - OpenStreetMap Wiki

While most consider the above to be sufficient attribution, it is OSM policy to get explicit consent from licensors under CC-BY that the format of attribution that is used is considered to be “reasonable” as required by CC-BY (as they don’t want anyone to be surprised). That is why we are asking for the explicit waiver. The second “parallel distribution” topic is related to digital rights management (DRM) restrictions that are imposed by the CC-BY license. That topic is much better explained by the OSM blog than I can do it justice, so I’ll just copy their words:

The 2nd reason is that the CC BY licences contain a strict prohibition on distributing so licensed material with DRM-enabled media/transport. The ODbL contains a similar restriction, but allows parallel distribution of “Derivative Databases” as a way to fulfill the obligation for unrestricted access. Distribution of ODbL “Produced Works” (for example maps) does not even require that. To avoid this incompatibility we will be requiring an explicit waiver of the prohibition on applying Technological Effective Measures (as defined in the license) found in Section 2a5B of CC BY 4.0. In other words, downstream users of OSM databases may be able to apply DRM measures to maps or other works they create using OSM data, so long as the underlying database is made available without such protections. Just to ensure that CC-BY licensors understand and accept that possibility, that is also included in the waiver. Happy to chat through anything. We are certainly not trying to ask for any additional rights (for OSM or for Microsoft) – just want to make sure we’re following OSM protocol.

Thanks!
Kari

From: Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 9:53 AM
To: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu>; Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>; Kari Annand <***@salawpllc.com>
Cc: ***@ec.europa.eu; KEMPER Thomas <***@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: RE: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Hi all,

Adding our legal representative, Kari, to help respond to the questions below.

With thanks and regards,
Marko

Marko Panić | Principal Lead Product Manager & MDCS LT – Comms | Microsoft Experiences + Devices – WWE – Microsoft Maps & Local

From: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2024 9:36 AM
To: Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>; Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>
Cc: ***@ec.europa.eu; KEMPER Thomas <***@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Dear Nemanja,

Happy 2024 to you too!

Concerning the matter in our previous emails, could you please explain a bit more what is the OSM-project's concern with the CC-BY 4.0 status of the GHSL-Data?

We would not normally agree to a waiver, because it is the European Commission's policy to publish data open access/source where possible, as in the GHSL project.

I am not sure about the difference between data stewardship as mentioned, and the European Commission's re-use policy. Also, could you also explain what is meant by parallel distribution (second bullet point) please?

Thank you.

Have a good day too!

Kind regards,

Chris

From: Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>
Sent: 12 January 2024 19:51
To: WIERSMA Chris (JRC); Marko PanicCc: JRC GHSL; KEMPER Thomas (JRC-ISPRA)
Subject: RE: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Hi Chris and Thomas,

I wanted to follow up on my previous email to you both. I hope you had a great start to the New Year!

As I was going through my emails after returning from vacation, I noticed that I didn't receive a reply from either of you. Would it be possible for you to respond or provide feedback on my previous email?

Thank you and have a great day!

Best regards,
Nemanja

From: Nemanja Bracko
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 1:17 PM
To: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu>; Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>
Cc: ***@ec.europa.eu; KEMPER Thomas <***@ec.europa.eu>
Subject: RE: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

[Adding Thomas to keep in the loop]

Hi Chris,

Thank you so much for your analysis and sorry for the delay in my response.

We appreciate your position and are happy to see that you are in agreement with the method of attribution that has been suggested by OSM. Our attorney is asking whether you can reply to the following with "I agree" so we can keep this for our records. Apologies for the inconvenience, but we take data stewardship very seriously and want to ensure that we are all in agreement about the proposed use.

On behalf of the Central IP Service of the European Commission regarding the Global Human Settlement Layer dataset, I agree:

Attribution by OpenStreetMap and its users through https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FContributors&data=05%7C02%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cf2359241ef4443cb6dc208dbfd0ac6e1%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638381994975172338%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8uCfcxXUaQ6NkYoOCOQOhApt7fhUl%2FWtB1Vi5iym3f8%3D&reserved=0 is sufficient to provide attribution to the European Union in a "reasonable manner" in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license.
The European Commission waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires open access or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap data.

All the best,
Nemanja

Original Message-----

From: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu>
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Nemanja Bracko <***@microsoft.com>; Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com>
Cc: ***@ec.europa.eu
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

[Some people who received this message don't often get email from chris.wiersma@ec.europa.eu. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Dear Mr Bracko and Mr Panic,

My name is Chris Wiersma. I work at the Central IP Service of the European Commission. I was forwarded your email about receiving permission for using Data from collections that have been published by the Commission on pages https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Fdatasets.php&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919530701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ISjTXK3hDawHmHbj4BShg6QYJg22wDU3RmfI20MXMcQ%3D&reserved=0 & https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Fcollection%2FGHSL&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919540115%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UTszlmfRJnEdOxkTgiHyh2Gy%2ByGo5gsfQb5czf9ow6Q%3D&reserved=0

I am getting back to your proposal for signing the waiver.

In our view, the approval letter to certify that the community is allowed access is not necessary, when the GHSL datasets are already fully available to the community of OpenStreetMap.

As the Commission has chosen CC-BY, there is no obstacle for the OSM project to go ahead and access and use GSHL datasets.

I am seeing in your waiver-proposal how OSM has committed to a reasonable manner for attribution. This would be sufficient, in my view.

Would a section on the Wiki for contributors, notifying the community there that data linked to GSHL is open for use/might have been used under the CC-BY license-terms + possibly a link to the original legal notice https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommission.europa.eu%2Flegal-notice_en&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919545716%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=T%2BR4qx8A0%2FzemT6dOZv7y48Us7DTFSfRScJucrATHkc%3D&reserved=0 be reasonable?

As licensed, only further attribution to the European Union is required.

We also think that a text on https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FContributors&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919551965%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ONkYpPerUm%2FFZeEm94gDcvUoFP18RClCXc1w4vGBgho%3D&reserved=0 could, in addition, basically refer to our pages: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Fdatasets.php&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919557441%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CM06oxBqPOKYyPGQ4sJRAXpK7xRgeKjV3C%2BCJF90liM%3D&reserved=0 , https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Fcollection%2FGHSL&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919562865%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TI59TeF3fxvzqa2Z%2FQVIeylX00s7xUmS2H0rJ2vNRPM%3D&reserved=0 , https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu%2Ffaq.php&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919568312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LBI6h%2BidlWs4KYqxlXQDgHXTeBBUubbWMmPgG%2BcM8qQ%3D&reserved=0 - similar to what is currently done for https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FContributors%23EU_Copernicus_&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919573732%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ThRbyvbRNTc3szzlAmGDlNQFrnvVDuhxvzabpD9ezt4%3D&reserved=0(GMES)_data .

Let me know if this makes sense in light of your request.

Best regards,

Chris

From: Nemanja Bracko <***@***.***<mailto:***@***.***>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:13 AM
To: JRC GHSL <***@ec.europa.eu<mailto:***@ec.europa.eu>>
Subject: Permission to use Global Human Settlement Layer on OpenStreetMap

Dear all,

I am Nemanja, a product manager at Microsoft working on the Open Maps project. I am reaching out to you regarding the Global Human Settlement Layer - GHS_BUILT_S2<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fcollections.sentinel-hub.com%2Fglobal-human-settlement-layer-ghs-built-s2%2Freadme.html__%3B!!DOxrgLBm!A8fC8wP2BhUgzHy4lnEWyQnm9FD9Zz-zWkisxb5G79PTOmbMRBHQJ2fJkFXckxoq6RS1tuDrl9TMOSEL5sdJv-s%24&data=05%7C01%7Cnbracko%40microsoft.com%7Cc18915b7db5c4cbae27208dbe10a5af6%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638351206919584577%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6htCC4qMHcROTtiRmCx1CMItheMFFsnMGdSGgv7g7Fo%3D&reserved=0> dataset and GHSL sets in general.

On behalf of the OpenStreetMap (OSM) community, we would like to request access to these datasets in order to improve the global map and help the open community have the most authoritative global map.

According to the OSM license, if a dataset does not have an ODbL license, the data owner must issue an approval letter (a waiver) to certify that the community is allowed to use such datasets. Although the GHSL data is free-to-use, as far as I could see, it is licensed under the CC:BY license, and therefore we are required to obtain an approval letter to use your data.

We kindly ask that you consider our request for signing the approval letter, and we will ensure that your data is shared with the OSM community. I have attached a waiver that would work for the community to use GHSL data to improve the map, but I have left it in Word format in case any changes are necessary. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you in advance for your help, and we look forward to your reply.

Best regards,
Nemanja

A Microsoft lawyer who specialises in ODbL asked the European Commission for a waiver regarding the Global Human Settlement Layer data and the commission said that they don’t need one.

Microsoft contacted the LWG on whether they agree with the European Commission’s answer.

Different initial interpretations of EC answer

EC responder seems to have said they’re not giving a waiver, as they have not talked to us, and if EC talks to us, they might provide the waiver.
EC responder seems to think that parallel distribution is sufficient. For attribution they seem to say that context always matters and that indirect attribution is sufficient the way that OSM does it, so no waiver is necessary. It seems that his position is that the licence that they've published it under, doesn’t have the restrictions we think. It seems like an official response, binding on them.
- A standard contractual axiom is that you interpret ambiguities against the drafter, under common law.

EC responder

Link shared: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-wiersma/?originalSubdomain=be
He is positioned in the branch of the European Commission that would be responsible for an official determination.: *Works at the Central Intellectual Property service of the European Commission in the Joint Research center, which is entrusted with the administrative management of European Commission's intellectual property rights. The service also conceives and revises dissemination contracts and clauses, licenses reuse, enterprise training and policy advice on IP issues, mainly for the European Commission staff, but also other EU institutions, bodies and agencies.”
He is senior enough and centrally positioned enough that if anybody questions, that we could say we fairly relied on this communication.
He has an LLM from the University of Amsterdam.

On EC datasets

The EC answer applies to any similarly licenced CCBY datasets published by the European commission.

Suggestions

Reply to MS that we are ok with the answer.
If anyone questions, we can say we relied on this specific communication.
Kathleen to talk to Kari about the broader questions (all CCBY datasets published by the European commission).
Talk more at the next meeting

Kathleen Lu
"Regarding the need for a signed version of the document you sent, I am unable to provide this as it would require pre-approval and formal collaboration with OSM. However, this would only be necessary if a different license than the CC-BY license provided or a waiver of any rights owned by the EU were requested. It is my understanding that no additional rights are being requested. I believe that the explanations provided here should clarify our understanding and alleviate any concerns about the European Union's position on this matter."

Other points mentioned

If a signed waiver is needed, it might be a heavily bureaucratic process.
Licence ambiguities are interpreted against the drafter, under common law.
EC commission will control the interpretation.
Microsoft should be prepared to make their own determination

Concern: Not requiring a waiver in this case of the Global Human Settlement Layer data published by the European Commission might be misconstrued as OSMF changing stance due to this request coming by MS.

MS brought receipts.
LWG does not have time to chase people down.

Should LWG rethink the waivers about data coming from European Commission, as the Commission has put out an official position that nothing from them conflicts with ODbL?

Does not speak for other governments.
This is what we tried with Australia but they would not do it.
The LWG to consider whether all data coming from the European Commission is okay if it's CC BY, because the European Commission has put out the official position that nothing is CC BY is conflicts with ODbL and as the data licensor, we will accept their official position on that matter . That does not mean that it will apply for data by other governments.
Kathleen talked with attorneys who wrote CC-BY licences and their interpretation is not the same as the EC - it’s ambiguous - it is on a licensor by licensor basis.

Action item: Kathleen to email Kari R. Annand for the broader question and discuss this again at the next LWG meeting. If there is alignment, could take this up the board afterwards.

Incorrect spelling of OpenStreetMap in Trailforks app To legal@

Initial email to LWG

FYI in case you monitor apps and organizations using the trademark and incorrectly apply or spell OpenStreetMap. I couldn't identify where this type of issue should be reported on the trademark policy page https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy or https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Contact

It looks like they may address the situation, but don't view it seriously.

I discovered this on the Android app - https://www.trailforks.com/apps/map

I'm not sure if it also is an issue on the app for Apple products, but if you have one it might be worth checking.

There is some question over how clear they talk about how they work with OSM data.
https://www.trailforks.com/garmin/
Import of GPS track data from OpenStreetMap at https://www.trailforks.com/help/view/113/

Also number 7 on https://www.trailforks.com/contribute/why/ also incorrectly spells as "Open Street Map" and somewhat reads as a misrepresents OSM's QA options/tools like OSMCha and the work of the OSM US trails stewardship initiative https://openstreetmap.us/our-work/trails/

Deferred.

Next Meetings

Monday 13 May 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 10 June 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 08 July 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 12 August 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 09 September 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 07 October 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 18 November 2024 (back to winter hours - 1800)
Monday 09 December 2024, 1800 UTC

Meeting adjourned 1 hour and 16 minutes after start.

Navigation menu

Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-04-08

Contents

Participants

Absent

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

Previous action items

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Trademarks – any updates?

Reportage

Jim’s retirement

OpenLandMap

Ticket#2024011610000011 – love letter candidate

OSMF transfer plan scope of work quote from law firm

Queries from OSMF

Query from HERE forwarded by the Board

SotM quick licence requirements - From Mateusz Konieczny

Queries to legal-questions

To privacy@ from CNIL (French data protection authority)

Croatia open licence

Assessment of York Open Data licence Ticket#2024030710000016

University of Washington GIS data and layers and university policies Ticket#2024032010000456

Assessment of Open Government License – Toronto To legal@

Microsoft and European Commission Ticket#2024031210000328

Incorrect spelling of OpenStreetMap in Trailforks app To legal@

Next Meetings