Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-05-13
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
13 May 2024, 18:00 UTC
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Hummel
- Tom Lee
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board, joined 10' after start)
- Alexander Zatko (guest)
Absent
- Simon Hughes
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2024-03-04 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.
- 2021-02-11 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 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)
- 2023-11-13 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: Ordnance Survey Ireland waiver - Update by Dermot McNally]
- 2023-11-13 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 [Topic: Ticket#2023110610000184 - Importing Austrian governmental data]m to add to add the following two templat
- 2023-11-13 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. [Topic: Ticket#2023110610000184 - Importing Austrian governmental data]
- 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to contact Lawdit and enquire about the cost estimate for opposing the trademark registration by UMBRAOSM.
- 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to reply to Kirill Fedotov that the new MapBuilder designs for OSM account sign-ups look good.
- 2024-01-08 Tom Hummel to reply to the last email about rescheduling the meeting regarding the Austrian governmental datasets , cc Dermot McNally and try to schedule a new date.
- 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to reply to the reporter that, per horizontal layers, what was done with the Organic Maps feature related to https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/6523/commits/51b3fc992e66e49b4c9a77e3d3fb05d99027baf5 is fine for data about hotel booking, and enquire about further concerns.
- 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to contact OWG regarding Matomo tracking (Q5: is there a delay after which old IP addresses are anonymised and Q6: For how long is Matomo tracking information retained by OSMF). LWG to answer questions one to four, providing the reasoning.
- 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to forward this request for permission to use the OSM trademarks on the domains: osm.tips, osmtips.de, osmtips.eu, osmtips.org, osmtips.com to the board.
- 2024-01-08 Guillaume Rischard to send an attribution love letter to OpenGeoHub, regarding OpenLandMap.
- 2024-01-08 Guillaume Rischard to talk with Tom Hummel, before the latter talks to Falke.
- 2024-01-08 Guillaume Rischard to provide a summary regarding the German federal cartography agency issue at the next meeting.
- 2024-02-12 Guillaume Rischard to ask UMBRAOSM for a copy of their filling change request. [UMBRAOSM UNIÃO DOS MAPEADORES BRASILEIROS DO OPENSTREETMAP]
- 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to email OSMtips and send them the template for project and domain grandfathering applications. [Topic: 2)OSM.tips and related domains]
- 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to email OpenLandCover and suggest template https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Project_Licence_and_Domain_Grandfathering_Application [Topic: 3)Query from Mateusz re OpenLandCoverMap]
- 2024-02-12 Simon Hughes to provide the difference in number of POIs between the old and new datasets provided by Geolytica to TomTom. [Topic: Geolytica]
- 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu and Tom Hummel to talk with Sarah. [Topic: OSMF transfer plan scope of work quote from law firm]
- 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to write back to EWG to ask for clarifications. [Topic: EWG enquiry about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GDPR/Affected_Services update]
- 2024-02-12 Jim Vidano to contact the website with an attribution love letter https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Reminder_Templates [Topic: Ticket#2024011610000011]
- 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to write back to inquirer that we will add to the copyright page, and that they should notify the Danish data authority that they will be represented on the /copyright alongside all our other prominent sources (there not being anything listed on the front page). Or you can get a CC waiver. Also cc Tom Lee [Ticket#2024020610000298]
- 2024-02-12 Tom Lee to reply [Topic: application for forward geocoding addresses in Germany]
- 2024-03-04 Dermot McNally to reply to Markus and suggest setting-up a meetingwith the Austrian government. Tom Hummel would be interested to join. [Meeting with Brigitte Lutz/Austrian gov and OSMF Austria LC]
- 2024-03-04 Jim Visano to finalise the letter to https://www.casaseneleste.com and bcc the LWG. Kathleen will add the letter to the LWG shared folder.
- 2024-03-04 Kathleen Lu to write back that this OGL Ontario lecence is okay, please add to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Canada before using [ODbL compartibility with Open Government License - Ontario]
- 2024-03-04 Kathleen Lu to write back that this OGL Nanaimo is okay, please add to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Canada before using [ [ODbL compartibility with OGL Nanaimo License - Ticket#2024030210000114]
- /2024-04-08 Kathleen Lu to reply to Sarah indicating that the LWG is not completely confident in the firm. Therefore, there is a risk of investing money and time in something that may not be the most effective use of resources. However, both the board and the LWG can monitor the situation closely. Additionally, any delay would also come with associated costs. [OSMF transfer plan scope of work quote from law firm]
- /2024-04-08 Kathleen Lu to write back that based on the slides, NNG seems to try to adhere to ODbL and the community guidelines. [Query from HERE forwarded by the Board]
/2024-04-08 Dorothea Kazazi to put the SotM quick licence requirements topic on the board’s agenda. [SotM quick licence requirements - From Mateusz]- /2024-04-08 Kathleen Lu to reply about the LWG's assessment of Croatia's open licence https://prod-data.gov.hr/en/open-license [Croatia open licence]
- /2024-04-08 Kathleen Lu to reply about the LWG's assessment of York's Open Data licence https://insights-york.opendata.arcgis.com/documents/york-region-open-data-licence Ticket#2024030710000016 [Assessment of York Open Data licence Ticket#2024030710000016]
- /2024-04-08 Kathleen Lu to reply. [University of Washington GIS data and layers and university policies Ticket#2024032010000456 Ticket#2024032010000456]
- /2024-04-08 Kathleen Lu to reply about the LWG's assessment of Open Government License – Toronto [Assessment of Open Government License – Toronto]
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
OSMF move to the EU
To be clarified by the LWG whether the minutes can be published, as the previous ones were redacted.
Kari Annand - was: 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, From: Kari Annand 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, From: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu> 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> 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, From: Kari Annand <***@salawpllc.com> 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! From: Marko Panic <***@microsoft.com> Hi all, Adding our legal representative, Kari, to help respond to the questions below. With thanks and regards, Marko Panić | Principal Lead Product Manager & MDCS LT – Comms | Microsoft Experiences + Devices – WWE – Microsoft Maps & Local From: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu> <You don't often get email from ***@ec.europa.eu. Learn why this is important> 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> 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, From: Nemanja Bracko [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:
All the best,
Original Message----- From: WIERSMA Chris <***@ec.europa.eu> [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:***@***.***> 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, |
- Kathleen was able to reach her by email but schedules have not aligned for a call
- Kathleen to try to set up a call again.
- There is no rush.
Casa Seneleste – update from original reporter - was: Ticket#2024011610000011 – love letter candidate
| Background |
|---|
| Jim Vidano sent a letter to Casa - https://www.casaseneleste.com/casa-con-piscina-en-pinares/185488823 |
Update from original reporter
https://www.casaseneleste.com/casa-con-piscina-en-pinares/185488823
"Thank you Jim & LWG. These site and their affiliates are now complying with the license, sadly because their choice to do it was to stop using OSM data and moving to G Maps, but I'm glad now the license is respected."
Jim’s letter was successful and we did get a reply from the person who originally emailed us.
Application for new membership – Alexander Zatko
| Email to LWG |
|---|
| I would be interested to participate on discussions concerning Licence/Attribution issues at the least, possibly other topics the group engages in.
I am an OSM mapper, and a member of the Slovakia local OSM chapter as well. Besides mapping, I run the nabezky.sk crowdsourced portal for x-country skiers and have also developed rovas.app whose aim is to (among other things) improve funding for vounteer projects. Occasionally I contribute to FOSS projects, primarily Drupal. I am motivated to join LWG, because I think the current state of OSM attribution license requirement compliance is suboptimal, as are the approaches I have seen so far, proposed to remedy the problem. I have a new proposal that I would like to discuss with the group. |
Alexander's attribution proposal: <link to Google doc>
Alexander had connection/sound issues during the meeting.
Query from OSMF: GDPR and affected services
| Email to LWG |
|---|
| The EWG have updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GDPR/Affected_Services and we would like to ask for bids to implement it. Are you happy for us to proceed? |
Guillaume joined 10’ after start.
- There is no simple engineering solution.
- API keys might be long-term a better solution, so there can be tiers of access.
On API keys
- In theory you could lock down the APIs more and/or require people to agree to updated terms, or send a notification.
- The vast majority of OSM contributors do not need access to all stuff.
- Security: This solution helps from a security standpoint, in cases of compromised accounts.
- Implementation: Implementing API keys doubles size of project.
Suggestion: write back to EWG and ask for an expert review of the details. Other points mentioned
- There should be some way of tracking that users have accepted the new terms.
- Measures should be reasonably secure,
GDPR related:
32 gdpr, rec. 39 S. 12: “appropriate security and confidentiality of the personal data, including for preventing unauthorised access to or use of personal data and the equipment used for the processing.”
Link shared (old)
https://dataprivacy.foxrothschild.com/2021/01/articles/european-union/gdpr/frances-cnil-fines-data-processor-and-data-controller-over-credential-stuffing-attack/
Queries from Local Chapter: OpenStreetMap France
| Background |
|---|
| Dear all,
I'm a current board member of French local chapter, OSM France. Last year, several contributors had intended to translate into French the community guidelines of ODbL license that the Foundation maintains on its website. Many people will get better knowledge about licenses if those guidelines are given in their mother tongue. Particularly in France, many spent years in arguments about ODbL without exactly knowing what it is all about. Had the Foundation ever being asked for a local translation of those guidelines? You can read the current revision here: https://mypads.framapad.org/p/licence-guidelines-g6g617bh As our translation is complete, we are now looking forward to know if it's accurate and how we could improve it before any publication. When properly reviewed, what is the best option to serve it online? Should we edit the OSM Foundation wiki with it or should the local chapter serve it on its own? We are open to discuss about our work.You can find a thread (in French) where we organize ourselves about it: https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/traduction-des-licence-guidelines-et-clarification-de-lodbl-avec-lecosysteme-francais/15506 Best regards |
OSM France is asking for feedback on their translation of the community guidelines.
- We would have to say that it is an unofficial translation and OSM France can host the translation themselves. If it is fine, we can link to it.
- Guillaume offered to review the French translation. He has been involved in the discussion of the community guidelines, more than the LCs. Could point to us if the translation is reasonable.
- If we have a small budget, we could ask a French lawyer to review it.
Action items
- Guillaume to review the translation of the community guidelines by OSM France.
- Kathleen to write back and say that some French speaking members will have a look at the translation but we don’t have resources to officially bless the translation. Suggestion to OSM France to host the translation themselves and we might link to it from the website or wikiformat it, to host it at the OSMF website as an unofficial translation.
Queries from Local Chapter: Email from Jochen/Falk/FOSSGIS
| Background |
|---|
| Hi Kathleen,
I have a half-time position doing paid work for the local chapter in Germany now, handling government contacts, doing some community organizing etc. As part of that I am also trying to coordinate some of the legal stuff together with Falk Zscheile. Falk is a member of our board and lawyer specializing in license and privacy issues. Unfortunately his English isn't that great so I am trying to help out where I can. We have several issues currently on the table that we want to discuss with you
and/or the legal working group. I am coming to you to discuss what the best
approach for this is. 1. The waiver for data licensed under CC-BY contains two clauses, one for the
attribution which is reasonably easy to understand for everybody. The other
about Section 2(a)(5)(B) is much harder to understand and to explain to people
who are considering signing the waiver. Now Falk has looked at this second
clause and thinks it is not necessary (the legal details I don't understand
currently myself), which would make things easier. But of course we don't want
to say anything different from what the OSMF is saying, so we need to figure
out whether "you lawyers" can come to a common view here or whether this is
maybe related to different legal view in Germany vs. the US or so. Due to the
federal structure of our government we have to talk to hundreds of agencies and
everything that makes this simpler would be a major improvement. 2. Falk says the waiver for aerial imagary are not necessary according to his
understanding of copyright law etc. And getting them (possibly again and again
if data sets, responsible agencies, URLs etc. change) is a pain. How important
is it to have these, especially if images are already released under CC-BY
or similar licenses? 3. We have a problem with the waiver in regards to the attribution. We "offer"
attribution on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors two clicks away
from the map, but there are some attributions on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright only one click away from the map. I
thought this was just some historic cases, but this page still gets new
attributions. This, understandably, makes some people feel like they come in
second place and we have at least one case of a German state apparently
refusing to sign the waiver because of that. (It might be that they don't want
to anyway and this gives them a plausible reason, but it is still a problem.)
We need to find a better solution for this. I am sorry if these questions have been hashed to death already in the LWG, I
know they are not new. But documentation on all of these things is minimal at
best and I am trying to implement a coherent strategy for us here in Germany. Regards, Some quick answers, but you and Falk are both welcome to join the next LWG meeting (May 13) for fuller discussion. 1. This is something we've gone around and around multiple times, but it is the official position of Creative Commons that the Section 2(a)(5)(B) waiver is needed. We asked them at the time CC-BY 4.0 was released, and raised it again with them this year. This is simply due to the history of how CC-BY 4.0 was written. 2. Aerial imagery itself is generally viewed as copyrightable in the US. I can't speak authoritatively on other countries. I don't think we use the template waivers very often, but it's usually in the context of API usage where OSM's usage would be noticeable to the imagery provider, and the provider's legal team wants to paper up the OSM usecase. I haven't heard of any issues regarding permission, so I'm not sure what roadblocks people are running into. 3. We don't have a great solution to this. Right now, there's somewhat of a bar of "national" source to be added to the https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright page, with LWG approval. Of course, some will still be unhappy, but we haven't any better ideas. |
- Email was sent several weeks ago and Kathleen has replied. They haven’t replied back.
- The LWG does not remember the German LC contacting them in the past and mentioning any issues.
- There’s no reason to not have a conversation and make sure the imagery provider understands what we’re doing.
Queries to legal-questions
Ticket#2024040710000103 – Database for importing license question
| Background |
|---|
| I would like to check if the following T&C (https://portal.csdi.gov.hk/csdi-webpage/doc/TNC ) would make this dataset suitable for importing into OSM. The data pertains to Hong Kong SAR and it feels pretty open, however the only stipulation I'm worried about is the wording around indemnity. Since OSM requires waiving of liability from its users it feels like OSM works in the spirit of the point. But maybe there is a finer line between indemnity and waving liability.
I'm happy to reach out to the department administering the data and seek further clarification if needed but I thought I'd first check with you first. |
- The phrasing they had for attribution – they don’t seem to think of cases where the data is incorporated with other data. What we do might not be prominent enough for their expectation. Seems like they want to have attribution within the data.
- There is a Chinese version. The EN one is the canonical one.
- “The terms might be revised and if you continue the data you agree the new terms.”
- LWG would probably not accept it.
Suggestion: Ask for a waiver.
>They probably won’t take out the indemnity language.
Next Meetings
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