Working Group Minutes/EWG 2015-02-09

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


IRC nick Real name
RichardF Richard Fairhurst
RobJN Rob Nickerson
zere Matt Amos


  • Mobile development
    • Some discussion of the Google Developer Agreement [1] and whether that has any nasty surprises for OSM(F). The general (non-lawyer) conclusion was that it seemed fairly benign.
    • Hack weekend organisation: at this stage, not looking for sponsors, although circumstances might change.


17:31:04 <zere> minutes of the last meeting are here: - please let me know if anything needs changing.
17:32:14 <zere> actions arising from the previous meeting: i know Rob is about to send a message to the board to kick off the discussion of "official" apps. and i'm starting to put together stuff for a hack weekend.
17:32:21 <zere> i don't think there was anything else...
17:32:58 * RichardF is on train atm, unlikely to participate - sorry
17:33:10 <zere> and nothing has been put on the agenda, so we start with AoB.
17:33:13 <zere> #topic AoB
17:33:25 <zere> RichardF: no worries :-) going anywhere interesting?
17:36:11 <zere> apparently "into a tunnel".
17:36:24 <zere> so, does anyone else have anything they'd like to discuss?
17:37:11 <zere> TomH: i saw you made a few fixes to the routing branch - what's left to do on that?
17:40:16 <RobJN> Hi
17:40:55 <zere> RobJN: hi :-)
17:41:05 <zere> very few people about this week, it seems.
17:41:53 <RobJN> Yeah, I'm a bit late too.
17:42:18 <RobJN> Did you have any feedback on the email I circulated (about minimum criteria)?
17:42:52 <zere> yeah, i sent an email not long ago. sorry i wasn't able to get to it before today
17:44:19 <zere> in summary: the list of criteria are good - seems like sensible stuff. i think it's worth including a bit more to pre-empt some of the questions which i feel are likely to come up when suggesting that OSMF do something "official" in this area.
17:44:25 <RobJN> Oh yeah, just seen it in my inbox. Thanks. I'll have a read
17:48:52 <RobJN> In regards to your point on liability, does the OSMF assume any liability over iD or P2?
17:53:19 <RobJN> That could help to set a benchmark for any OSM app.
17:53:35 <zere> i assume so, in that they're loaded from, although it seems hard to imagine anything coming of that. i was more concerned in the mobile app space because there's presumably a contract with apple/google which (again, presumably) puts some liability on the developer.
17:55:02 <zere> as the app will be free, i think OSMF would avoid any of the "chargeback hell" that some people get from apple/google.
17:55:59 <zere> but it's possible there's some provision in the contract for other charges or claims against the developer. i'm betting apple/google's lawyers will have made sure it's all "guaranteed profit to the app store, all liability to the developer."
17:56:25 <RobJN> I can dig around to see if I can find anything. Can't imagine there is much liability - there is after all a booming app market with apps being developed by bedroom devs.
17:56:47 <RobJN> I'd have thought that a take-down would be the normal process if problems occured
17:58:40 <zere> sure, and if the board are concerned then i'm sure LWG can do a review of the terms. it's just something that i thought i would have wanted to know when i used to be on the board.
17:59:23 <zere> (i.e: when 'adopting' someone else's stuff; what are the additional risks)
18:03:31 <RobJN> I'll check with LWG if they ask that. Otherwise let's start with assuming the same issues as iD/P2 on It seems like if you have a problem with an app you deal with the developer (and google/apple act as a shop front - i.e. they have little liability)
18:04:05 <RobJN> Where are we at in regards to setting up a hack weekend?
18:05:14 <zere> i really, really doubt whether the issues are the same as with iD/P2 on - it's a completely different situation and one in which OSMF isn't contractually bound to any 3rd party.
18:05:38 <zere> hack weekend is in the works, provisionally for April. will update more as bit start falling into place.
18:06:22 <RobJN> Did you need any of my help?
18:06:48 <RobJN> Well "want" rather than "need"
18:08:19 <zere> when i've found out what date(s) i can get a venue, then i'll want to check your availability - i think it's important to have you there. we will also need to "organise" some stuff - probably an hour or two on saturday morning to lay out the idea and what's involved.
18:08:59 <zere> we'll probably need to try and at least roughly divide up the work into different tasks/streams as well... but that's getting ahead of myself ;-)
18:09:12 <zere> venue / dates first... everything else later
18:09:18 <RobJN> Sounds good.
18:09:44 <RobJN> Do we tend to find sposors for this sort of thing - e.g. free food, etc? Or go it alone?
18:12:18 <zere> that'll depend. i'm hitting up my employer (MapQuest) for the food - they're usually good enough to fork out for a few pizzas in addition to the venue.
18:12:32 <zere> they've not refused in the past, but there's a first time for everything.
18:17:11 <RobJN> Perfect :-)
18:17:23 <RobJN> FYI Google's terms:
18:23:26 <RobJN> Once you strip out anything to do with charging it seems like the rest is just a checkbox list to confirm that you are entitled to release the app (your own IP, you're complying with data protection, you will be liable for the app and its maintenance). Google do not acquire any rights over your app other than a right to display it on the app store for sales and for marketing.
18:25:56 <RobJN> Oh and if you initially release for free, you can't start charging for the same app.
18:26:23 <zere> i was just about to say: the only thing which leaps out at me is that it seems to include the right for google to use "Developer Brand Features" in its online & TV marketing (6.2). but it seems utterly unlikely that Google will ever advertise OSM.
18:27:03 <RobJN> And if they do then surely that's a good thing?
18:27:29 <zere> well, it doesn't say they'd do it in a positive way ;-)
18:28:00 <RobJN> I tghink you'll find that you're protected by other legislation in that space
18:29:08 <RobJN> slander, false accusations, and so on. Otherwise the TV would be full of negative advertising
18:29:18 <zere> and that they don't need a grant of "Developer Brand Features" if they ever wanted to do a comparison - that's a fair use of trademark anyway.
18:30:21 <zere> oh, of course. i'm sure Google are clever enough not to slander or do false advertising. it's not like they'd have to look much further than worstofosm if they wanted to bias the comparison anyway
18:30:23 <RobJN> That reminds me of the "better than Gritish Bas" advert from years ago
18:34:54 <zere> cool - anyone got anything else they'd like to discuss before the meeting closes?
18:38:18 <zere> okay - thanks to everyone for coming & hope to see you next week :-)