Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2021-09-09
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
9 September 2021, 20:00 UTC
- Dermot McNally (Chairing)
- Jim Vidano
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
- Michael Cheng
- Tom Hummel
- Kathleen Lu (on leave)
Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi
Adoption of past Minutes
- 2021--08-12 Accepted
Previous Action Items
- 2017-03-02 Simon to determine existing obligations towards sources listed on the copyright page.
- 2017-05-04 All/Simon to review import guidelines with regards to licence “approval”.
- 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.
- 2019-01-10 Simon to draft text to developers of apps related to geo/mapping, having OSM in their names or using variations of our logo.
- 2019-02-14 Simon to summarise the advice regarding information requests from law enforcement and send it around.
- 2019-12-12 Simon to discuss trademark registration strategy (more countries, additional classes, etc) with lawdit
- 2020-01-09 Simon to include text about downstream produced works to the FAQ.
- 2020-03-12 Simon to send to Mateusz the link with the research by Kathleen on attribution on various apps.
- 2020-09-10 Simon to set-up call with Kathleen and our UK lawyer about trademarks.
- 2020-10-08 Simon and Guillaume to look at the translation issue of the copyright policy page.
- 2020-10-08 Simon to send his Moovit contact to Guillaume.
- 2020-10-08 Simon to send a summary of which action items need to be done.
- 2021-01-14 Guillaume to report on Board status re identification of outside counsel
- 2021-02-11 Kathleen 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 to sort out various email issues -
Making sure Dermot is on the main legal mailing issue, making sure everyone is getting OTRS email notifications for the legal queue.
- 2021-07-08 Guillaume to meet with Dermot about using OTRS.
2021-07-08 Dermot to email the board and raise framing context of HOT draft trademark agreement to get better guidance.
- 2021-07-08 LWG members to provide comment on the HOT draft trademark agreement on the next meeting.
- 2021-07-08 Tom to reply to the gdpr_openstreepmap.org_tsfkd@ email.
2021-07-08 Dorothea to add Opensnowmap.org trademark request to the agenda of the next mid-month board chat, as it has not been approved by the board yet.
- 2021-07-08 Jim to look at next steps for Opensnowmap.org paperwork after the trademark request has been approved by the board.
2021-07-08 Dermot to publish the approved attribution guidelines on the OSMF website (webpage and linked document).
- 2021-07-08 Dermot to ask Tobias for expected outcome regarding the request for change of the text of the standard tile license.
2021-07-08 Dermot to add the License waiver and permission templates documents to the OSMF website (they're currently on Google drive).
- 2021-07-08 Guillaume to ask Simon for more information regarding his question if our trademark was converted to an UK trademark, and is the EU one is still valid.
- 2021-08-12 Tom to suggest text to be published regarding OSMF's legitimate interest in processing personal data.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot to reply to Tobias about simplifying the text of the tile licence.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot to make the pull request on Github openstreemap-website regarding attribution requirements for OSMF tiles
- 2021-08-12 Tom to ping Lawdit regarding the Japanese trademark process.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot 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.
Check OTRS tickets
- No reports.
- Tom has handled some of the tickets.
- Guillaume has asked Allan to look at one of them (India related).
LWG role in approaching major data users about better compliance with attribution requirements
Email from Jean-Marc Liotier/board. Topic carried over from August LWG meeting.
Question by the board: In cases where people need to be approached in a friendly manner to be reminded of the attribution requirements - would the LWG be the group to do that..?
Points mentioned during meeting
- LWG has no enforcement power - more of a question to appeal to people.
- The Belgian template “love letter" was mentioned (sent in cases where attribution is not displayed).
Who to approach
- It is appropriate for the LWG - for the time being - to reach out to bigger companies.
- Minor cases can be reached out by community members - it is more efficient and the LWG does not have the capacity to do that.
Look at past emails and create a template email for the community that can be made public.
- There is probably a list on the OSM wiki of letters/emails that have been sent.
- There is a page on the OSM wiki and 2 Github repositories with lists of companies who do not comply with attribution requirements.
- LWG should be proud of the successes it had and publish more.
- Don't want to create a routine list for "name and shame".
- LWG to create template emails for the community
- LWG to reach out to bigger companies that don't comply with the attribution requirements.
- Jim to ask Simon whether he has previous emails contacting companies that were not displaying attribution.
- Guillaume to check past emails (e.g. the one last year 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 repositories, to the Signal group.
- Jim to have a go at creating a template email for the community to contact companies regarding non compliance with the attribution guidelines.
- Dermot to reply to Jean-Marc with the LWG decision to create a template email for minor cases available to the community and the LWG to directly contact bigger companies.
After trying social pressure, has anything else been tried? (Question by Jim)
> Last year there was a case in Germany, where a company was taken to court and they settled. They agreed to fix all their printed maps with attribution. They also paid OSMF costs.
Followup on HOT draft trademark agreement
Action item was: “Guillaume to communicate back to the board the LWG question regarding the motivation/objectives of the agreement for OSMF.”
LWG wanted to know the board’s motivation because they were asked to provide feedback on the wording of the agreement.
- LWG’s message taken back to the board.
- There was a response by one board member.* Some board members suggested a joint session of LWG and the board.
- Topic does not seem controversial.
Decision: Schedule a joint session with the board.
Action: Dorothea to add a topic on the board September mid-month chat for the board to schedule a joint session with the LWG (request by Guillaume, board).
Followup on clarifying our approach to data deletion requests
Action item was: "Tom to update the text regarding our legitimate interest in processing personal data."
Decision: Topic carried over to next month.
Followup on Japanese trademark process
Action item was: "Tom: update on inquiries about possible stalling of the process."
- There was some discussion on the Signal group.
- The delay is probably due to bureaucracy.
Action: LWG to ask Tom in a week (2021-09-16) on Signal if anything needs to be done.
Feedback request for draft LWG section in next OSMF report
See email from earlier today (9th Sept)
Notification #109788185 about the registration of “OPEN” in Russia (Sent 2021-08-13)
The good/services list includes: "geographical maps", "geographic mapping services". The list of goods/services is 40 pages long.
Any Other Business
October 14th 2021 20:00 UTC on BigBlueButton video room.
The minutes will be at Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2021-10-14.