Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-06-10

From OpenStreetMap Foundation

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

Participants

  • Dermot McNally
  • Simon Hughes
  • Tom Hummel
  • Tom Lee
  • Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board, joined 15' after start)
  • Simon Poole (guest, Swiss OSM, ex-chairperson of the LWG)

Absent

  • Kathleen Lu

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

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:

Trademarks – any updates?

Reportage

OSMF move to the EU

Guillaume hasn't contacted Lawdit or asked the Luxembourg lawyers for details on the UK side of migration.

Action item: Guillaume to have a meeting with Tom Hummel, after the former's request, in order to formulate the question to Lawdit.

Kari Annand - was: Microsoft and European Commission Ticket#2024031210000328

  • 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.

Proposal from Alexander Zatko regarding attribution enforcement

Alexander's attribution proposal: <link to Google doc>

There has been LWG discussion via email. Some LWG members are not very enthusiastic.

  • The involvement of third parties seems nebulous.
  • Some questions remain unanswered.

Suggestion: Vote during the next LWG meeting.

GDPR affected services: EWG follow-up

LWG during their July meeting decided to not publish the minutes of this section.

Law enforcement request

LWG during their July meeting decided to not publish the minutes of this section.

Historic info on such requests: There have been 5 such requests in the past, but we did not possess relevant data at the time, hence no policy was deemed necessary then (as informed by Simon Poole).

Decision: Continue the discussion offline.

OWG Request – Questions by Facebook for Data use checkup


We have an option to login to www.osm.org with a Facebook account, and Facebook is asking us to answer some questions.

  • Tom Hummel has asked Kathleen about her understanding of the term 'data processor' in the questionnaire, as they are using the term in a non-specific manner.
  • Fastly might not qualify as a data processor under the GDPR's definition.
  • This data does not pass through the CDN.
  • The latest screenshot sent by OPS inquires whether OSMF has policies addressing some aspects of the questionnaire.

Enquiry if any member in the LWG can pick this up.

Suggestion: Answer the questions factually.

Queries from Local Chapter: OpenStreetMap France

It appears that they overlooked translating the legally revised FAQ. They have translated an unofficial FAQ, which include some aspects not covered in the FAQ.

Points to consider:

  • What should form the basis of the guidelines, and should they be unified?
    • The FAQ should align with the guidelines, since the FAQ did not undergo an approval process.

On hosting: We are willing to host on the OSMF website.

Decision: This topic will be included on the agenda for the next meeting.

Switzerland – Licensing GTFS shapes.txt files

Swiss Federal Railways

  • Have been using OSM data into their app and as a background map and for pedestrian routing to and from the stations they have contracts with.
  • They maintain an open data policy and are actively working towards making this information available as a service to developers interested in building applications using their data.
  • SOSM has been in contact with Swiss Federal Railways.
  • A division in Swiss Federal Railways is developing an API to generate routes, using OSM data.

Related to their GTFS files

  • Have an open-journey-planner, a multimodal routing engine instance, which produces routes/geometry that you can follow. Similarly to routing engines that run on OSM.org: a line with the coordinates of every "shape point".
  • They ingest OSM data into their routing engine. Users input a starting point and endpoint to receive journey results formatted as geometry.
  • The results are likely generated dynamically and can include options for cycling, driving, or public transport - so, it's not one-to-one to OSM.
    • Simon Poole offered to get a clarification on this point.
  • Their intention is to offer these routes through an API, potentially overlaid on a map.
  • Beyond the geometry, there is limited additional information (e.g., type of transport or stops), but there is a "distance travelled" metric.
  • Seems between a database and a produced work. Similar to SVG files, where you could recreate our data out of them.

Simon Poole suggested handling it as a produced work and would like the LWG's feedback or a ruling.

On handling GTFS files as a produced work

  • Attribution will be provided by Swiss Federal Railways.
  • If the routes are dynamically created, they are never actually stored as a database, in which case there's nothing to hand over as ODbL, and makes sense to treat it as a produced work.

o Results would fall under ODbL if someone accesses the API multiple times, downloads each route, and reconstructs the database.

  • They could licence it as they like, but anybody can ask them for the underlying database which they then need to provide under ODbL.

On handling GTFS files as a derivative database

  • Swiss Federal Railways might raise some concerns and might make the data users less comfortable.
  • One can typically argue that producing entire network GTFS files from OSM is a derivative database, as it is only a transformation of OpenStreetMap data.
  • If it is considered a derivative database, they have fulfilled their obligation of distributing it. It must be licensed under ODbL, and recipients of this data are directly bound by the licence from the OSMF..

On produced works

  • We are okay with publishing maps as produced works.
  • There's a historic produced work guideline, which is based on intent. If you use it like a produced work, it's a produced work, and if you use it like a derivative database to recreate information that is in OSM, it's a derivative database. Attempting to circumvent share-alike obligations by generating a produced work that allows complete recreation of the original information will disqualify it as a produced work.

Other points mentioned

  • This issue is not limited to Switzerland, as GTFS is used in many countries. There was a case, probably in Prague, where Google was using GTFS data derived from OpenStreetMap.
  • There is a different data file in the GTFS definition, which Simon Poole suggests to be handled as a derivative database.
  • This type of data is not economically viable for private entities to produce. Therefore, if we can encourage agencies to utilise OSM, they will likely be more effective in maintaining their data up to date in OSM.

Gray area - 4.2 of the ODbL
a collective database that is used to generate a produced work is not a derivative database. One can still generate produced work from an ODbL source, and wouldn't be obliged to give out the non-ODbL source. is This is something that we have quite often, because maps are very often generated from multiple independent databases, but are in the end one produced work. So what the recipient gets, is the right to have to get the ODbL OSM derived part of th.

Consensus seemed to be: Produced work seems fine for portions of data that one couldn't have got without OSM being passed back in a transient fashion. A durable, comprehensive work that comes from the same source is probably a derivative work.

Point to consider: What would be the best for the OSM project.

Decision: Have some side conversation about the topic.

Queries from Local Chapter: Email from Jochen/Falk/FOSSGIS

Not discussed.

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2024050910000143 Open Government License 2.0 (Niagara Region)

Looks similar to other Canadian licences.

Decision: Discuss it in chat.

Ticket#2024052110000334 Including Umap maps in publication

  • This was discussed on Signal chat.
  • We can tell them the obligations based on OSM and that they should talk to umap operators, as they have obligations both to the project and to the cartography.

Ticket#2024051410000571 Use of OSM logo on 3D printed products

  • Need clarity about use of logo, as misrepresentation possible.
  • It looks similar but not identical to our logo, as there are constraints due to 3D printing.
  • Suggestion: Widen the scope of the merchandise approval form.

Decision: Discuss on chat.

Simon disconnected 70'.

To trademarks@ - PROTEUS project

Next Meetings

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

Retrieved from "https://osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-06-10&oldid=12868"