Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-02-13
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
13 February 2023, 18:30 UTC
- Dermot McNally
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Simon Hughes (joined ~30' after start)
- Tom Hummel
- Tom Lee
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board, joined ~17' after start)
Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi
Adoption of past minutes
- 2023-01-19 Approved
- 2022-12-08 Approved
Previous action items
- 2017-03-02 Simon Poole to determine existing obligations towards sources listed on the copyright page.
- 2017-05-04 All/Simon Poole 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 Poole 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 Poole to summarise the advice regarding information requests from law enforcement and send it around.
- 2019-12-12 Simon Poole to discuss trademark registration strategy (more countries, additional classes, etc) with lawdit
- 2020-01-09 Simon Poole to include text about downstream produced works to the FAQ.
- 2020-03-12 Simon Poole to send to Mateusz the link with the research by Kathleen Lu on attribution on various apps.
- 2020-09-10 Simon Poole to set-up call with Kathleen Lu and our UK lawyer about trademarks.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole and Guillaume Rischard to look at the translation issue of the copyright policy page.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole to send his Moovit contact to Guillaume Rischard.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole to send a summary of which action items need to be done.
- 2021-01-14 Guillaume Rischard to report on Board status re identification of outside counsel
- 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
- 2022-04-14 Guillaume Rischard to update agenda with Navionics (Garmin) success. Topic Fixing attribution success
- 2022-06-09 Guillaume Rischard to check with Amanda regarding the return-to address she used to the letter about printed maps with false copyright
- 2022-06-09 Guillaume Rischard to check with the rest of the board about the advice on CWG with LWG to rework the copyright page.
- 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 redirected to right person.
- 2022-10-13 Guillaume Rischard to take the Ticket#2022100310000013 issue to the board (related to legal consequences for “unlicensed surveying”)
- 2022-10-13 Tom Hummel to point to the Corporate Membership page or the donation page. Ticket#2022101110000098
- 2022-11-10 Guillaume Rischard to ask someone else on the Philippines community regarding proof of the use of OSMF trademarks there.
- 2022-11-10 Guillaume Rischard to pass the message to the board member who wrote to the LWG about Open Database License (ODbL).
- 2022-12-08 Kathleen Lu to forward the email seeking endorsement to the board. [Topic: Email to trademarks@ - Kiwix]
- 2022-12-08 LWG to forward the email from dSpace to the board. [Topic: Ticket#2022120510000221 - dSpace request to show logo]
- 2023-01-19 Guillaume Rischard to reply to Ticket#2022120510000177 (COPIE DE SIGNES DE BALISAGE) on OTRS in French.
Reportage and action item updates
Impresa - request to be unblocked
Past LWG discussion:
Impresa emailed the LWG asking to be unblocked - they said they have fixed attribution and offered to donate. The email was forwarded to the Operations Working Group (OWG).
- Impresa had a lot of usage of OSM tiles.
- Their website does not seem changed regarding attribution.
- The referrer was blocked.
Trademarks – any updates?
1. Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update.
2. Guillaume - Evidence of use in Philippines status.
3. Simon - Any new notices.
Board business - Budget request from Board
- No additional LWG expenses anticipated.
- Normal expenses: trademark filings and follow-up fees.
- Base the 2023 LWG budget on last year's budget.
Board business - CWG updates to Copyright page
|Background by LWG|
|Making the beginning more friendly to new users - Is this something the Board can encourage/put some resources behind?
Kathleen has emailed the Communication Working Group. The CWG shared back a collaborative document with suggested text and asked for feedback.
The Communication Working Group (CWG) sent proposed text for updating the copyright page to make it friendlier and explain OpenStreetMap to page visitors.
- The copyright page is the most common landing page.
- Rewording aimed at visitors who click on the attribution link on external websites and arrive to the copyright page, without knowing anything about OSM.
- Add about how to contribute to the project.
- Make the sidebar suggested by CWG, to be a permanent sidebar across the OSM Foundation website. The sidebar contains links to
- Support OSM
- Sign up and start editing [link].
- Read the Blog
- Join the OSM Foundation
- Find an OSM community"
Live editing of the document with the proposed text.
Board business - Complaint regarding Bing MapBuilder
|The Microsoft MapBuilder was presented to the OSMF board and to Advisory Board members during November 2021: Microsoft presentation - "MapBuilder, an experiment to build the best map" during an Advisory Board meeting. Its initial implementation allowed some Microsoft users to submit changes to the OSM data via a single account, instead of having one account per individual contributor. This led to the single Map builder user OSM account getting a block by the Data Working Group (DWG) on February 2022.
The Data Working Group (DWG), after a request by the board, sent a list of requirements for contributions to OSM via external services - such as the Microsoft MapBuilder - for the contributor to be a meaningful part of the community, including:
There has been communication between Microsoft, individual board members and the DWG, and at least two online meetings in 2022 with some members of the OSMF board: on 2022-03-03 and on 2022-06-20. The current implementation of MapBuilder does not use a single account for all of the edits submitted to OSM, but there are other concerns by the DWG, the board and some community members. The latest meeting between Microsoft, DWG and board members seems to have taken place in January 2022.
Related board discussions:
See email to legal@osm What is board status of communications?
- Diary entry regarding Bing Map Builder. Useful as a summary, it is factually correct.
On Microsoft accounts for submission of edits to OSM
- Bing MapBuilder had one proxy account for submitting map edits from Microsoft MapBuilder users to OpenStreetMap. They were asked to not do that and were forced to stop when the single account was blocked by the DWG. This was followed with phonecalls and discussions, where it was mentioned that the Microsoft users need to agree to OSM terms, understand what OSM is and have an OSM account.
- Microsoft were then registering thousands of "proxy" _(more about proxying below)_ accounts, assigned one-to-one to Microsoft users.
Need to be clarified to LWG
- What past conversations had the board had with Microsoft.
- Is there a direct line of communication with Microsoft.
On OSMF communications with Microsoft
- We do have a direct line to the Microsoft team which works on MapBuilder.
- There have been past conversations between OSMF and Microsoft about MapBuilder.
- We have explicitly told to the MapBuilder team what not to do, but that was not followed.
On what Microsoft might be trying to do
- Make editing and adding data easier and they focus much on the easier part.
- What MapBuilder currently does is similar to what Apple does - you sign-up with a specially created email for that service, so it's not tied to your main email address. Nothing in our terms says that you can't do that.
On MapBuilder "sock-puppet" accounts
- These are not "sock-puppet" accounts. Sock puppeting is when you are creating one account and pretending to be somebody else.
On Microsoft acting as a proxy
- We don't have any direct communication with the MapBuilder users.
- Sometimes MapBuilder users blocked by OSM can still edit OSM, if Microsoft thinks that the edits are good enough.
- Interactions with the rest of OSMers seem hard to do well with the current setup.
On obtaining information about who owns a specific MapBuilder editing account
- We could ask Microsoft who holds a specific email address, e.g. if there is a licencing dispute regarding an edit that the person made.
- In case of a licence change, we would have the email address, which Microsoft knows. We could chase Microsoft if needed.
- Microsoft's intention seemed to be that any OSM direct message to the MapBuilder users would be auto-forwarded to them. The help page on MapBuilder says that personal information will remain on Microsoft but you might receive comments or messages from other mappers.
- The diary entry seemed to indicate that the messaging did not work as expected.
- The LWG had received email feedback from someone who tested the messaging function and reported issues.
On complaint that communications can be turned off by Microsoft
- Overstating the problem, as anyone can do that, e.g. by ignoring their emails.
- You can create an email account just to edit OSM and never use that email account again.
- The issue which was mentioned was that the user has no control on whether they will receive the communications.
Suggestion: Τalk to Microsoft that the current setting makes it hard for people to communicate.
Legal aspect: On MapBuilder edits, Microsoft rights and the OSM contributor terms
From a legal perspective,
- it is not necessarily required for someone to agree to the subcific language of the contributor terms. If they agree to something broader than the contributor terms and then Microsoft passes the rights to us, then it is legally ok for us to use those edits. If Microsoft does not want a two step agreement, but a one step broader agreement from the user, that is ok.
- the issue is whether we get a proper licence to pass through to OSMF. It's not hard for a company to do a good job about this legally.
- We adopted the contributor terms because the Open Database License (ODbL) licence was not considered to be enough.
- The OSM contributor terms are a licensing contract.
Other points mentioned
- Microsoft probably thinks that they have already given us the necessary rights.
- Perhaps Bing Maps has a blanket term that would give them full autonomy over any contributions. Similar to Google Maps, which has a general clause in their conditions that grants them very (overly) broad licence over any overlaid geodata. This has caused a stand-off with Ordnance Survey, whereby they have taken the view that their licensees may not overlay data for that reason.
- If we can hold someone for contributor terms, maybe that can be Microsoft.
Related to the suggestion to talk with Microsoft
- Before talking with them, we should first take a view as a project on how we feel about the proxying the contributor terms.
- Proxying is the wrong term.
- Ask for measures that Microsoft is taking regarding the communication.
- Some easy changes are necessary, e.g. adding information during the tutorial.
- Suggest to MapBuilder to update their terms, so that there is a clear pass of rights to OSM.
- We might want the OSM logo next to the Bing logo.
On not copying from other maps
- The general Microsoft agreement that is currently presented during MapBuilder account creation does not include important information such as not copying from other maps.
- Everything Microsoft does with MapBuilder is towards encouraging tracing off Bing satellite imagery, so it's hard to copy other information.
- It's difficult to copy building geometries from other sources to MapBuilder. The setup is similar to Humanitarian OSM Team's (HOT).
Other points mentioned
- https://www.bing.com/mapbuilder/ has some very fine print mentioning OSM.
- These problems should be solvable.
Kathleen to email Harsh Govind (Microsoft).
Queries to legal-questions (not discussed)
Inquiry re Finnish satellite imagery
|Provided by LWG:
First email in English, rest machine-translated. Original in LWG inbox.
I have been in contact with NLSFI recently.
While they have repeatedly expressed approval of a mention in osm.org/copyright being enough as an attribution, they will not sign the anti-DRM Compatibility waiver, or any other extra documents.
This probably means that post-2015 NLS data cannot be used, at least directly.
Finnish statutory and case law is AFAIK unclear what it comes to a manual trace of a map being a derivative work, but they would prefer an Attribution even then, too.
Forwarded Message --------
Subject: VS: VS: OpenStreetMap and attribution
Sent by: Iiro Laiho <iiro@***.***>
The material is licensed under that license, and we do not make any additional documents related to it.
Well, as I said before, it should be mentioned as a source.
So I'm not a lawyer, but question 1 is related to minor incompatibilities between CC-BY 4.0 and the ODbL license used by OSM regarding technical copy protections. Just on the basis that the material has been published under the CC-BY 4.0 license, the material in question cannot be copied to OpenStreetMap.
Question 2 is, on the other hand, very relevant in relation to this matter, because (at least according to my knowledge) the utilization of MML's material in OSM after the 2015 license change is limited to the fact that roads and buildings, for example, have been manually added to the map using raster materials as an aid. Before the license change, data had also been copied directly using automatic computer programs. I have understood that the case law is at least somewhat unclear in this regard.
I am not in any kind of service relationship with the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and I do not receive any kind of compensation for investigating this matter. However, I consider the position of a citizen to be a great loss and a very inappropriate situation if, for example, all or a large part of OpenStreetMap's content about Finland has to be destroyed for bureaucratic reasons.
Regards, Iiro Laiho
On 17.1.2023 17.24, Tarvainen Teija wrote:
I'm not sure if I understood this question, but according to our license, the source must be mentioned in connection with the service, and I would also like to mention the update date of the material, if possible. If, for example, it is constantly updated, this could be mentioned.
Sent by: Iiro Laiho <iiro@***.***>
Would it be possible to get an answer to this question?
OSM representative Simon Poole had sent me the following message:
Dear Iiro Keeping the copyright information, in both locations, up to date is a community task, particularly considering that Attribution is the "copyright" page is only added when it is a hard requirement by the licensor. In this case I would suggest checking with NLS if a) Attribution on the "copyright" page is still required, if yes, you should create a corresponding pull request in the website repository https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website b) if the necessary waivers for use of CC BY material in OSM have been granted (if not, derived material will have to be removed), see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates Simon Am 02.04.2020 um 13:39 schrieb Iiro Laiho: Hello, I have noticed that according to OpenStreetMap's copyright page, data received from NLS Finland is licensed under their custom license. Since 2015, they have however used the CC-BY license. The page also lacks the Attribution to some important datasets that have been used with OSM, like the raster maps. It also does not mention the dates when the data has been received. I have added an up-to-date Attribution to the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#National_Land_Survey_of_Finland Please update the Attribution on the https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright page. -- Iiro Laiho -- Iiro Laiho
On 6 July 2021 17:47, Iiro Laiho wrote:
I'm sorry that this matter has dragged on.
Openstreetmap would like an English-language consent to use the data. Would it be possible to get the attached consent form signed? That would be an acceptance that the copyright mention on the page osm.org/copyright is sufficient for the Land Surveying Institute. In addition, there is consent that the data may also be distributed in a DRM-protected format, as long as an unprotected format is also available in accordance with the ODbL license.
There is more information about the latter point on the following page: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
Tarvainen Teija (MML) wrote on April 14, 2020 at 9:23 a.m.:
Hey, As I stated in our phone conversation, the new mention you presented below is ok. best regards Teija Tarvainen Teija Tarvainen leading expert Land Surveying Institute, Information services tel. 040 *****
Sent by: Iiro Laiho <iiro@***.***>
Hey, I was actually in touch with you by phone this afternoon. So I have a couple of questions about licensing. In 2013, the Land Surveying Office issued a statement that map data can be imported into OpenStreetMap if the copyright page ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en ) mentions the Land Surveying Office and its license. Currently, the wording there is as follows: "Finland: Contains data from the National Land Survey of Finland's Topographic Database and other datasets, under the NLSFI License." So it refers to the old license. Due to the license change, I have outlined the following source citation: 'Contains data from the "Topographic Database", "Background map series (raster)", "Topographic map series (raster)", "NLS Ortophotos" and other datasets from the National Land Survey of Finland. Data has been received from 08/2013 onwards. Data received before 01/2015 is licensed under NLS Open Data License and since then under CC-BY-4.0.' The names of the licenses would therefore be links to the license text. Are things legally OK on behalf of the Land Surveying Institute if the source and license mention of the copyright page I linked is updated to the latter format? Quoted is the message I previously sent to the application support address.
-- Sincerely, Iiro Laiho
Original message ----------
Sender: email@example.com Recipient: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 4. April 2020, at 02.01 am Subject:[MITPA #1531799] Automatic reply: Re: Contact via online form/License
Thank you for contacting us, your service request has been received. We will contact you if necessary. If you reply to this message, please use the reply function without changing the subject field of the message. Regards, Land Surveying Institute, ServiceDesk
Hey, Thanks for the answer. However, I would like a little more clarification on this matter. I have now updated the citation of the updated version on the OpenStreetMap wiki page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#National_Land_Survey_of_Finland . However, it is not yet on OpenStreetMap's copyright page, which is therefore at https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright , which I mentioned in the previous post. So the current text on the wiki is as follows: "Contains data from the "Topographic Database", "Background map series (raster)", "Topographic map series (raster)", "NLS Ortophotos" and other datasets from the National Land Survey of Finland. Data has been received from 08/ 2013 onwards. Data received before 01/2015 is licensed under NLS Open Data License and since then under CC-BY-4.0." So is it okay on behalf of the Land Surveying Institute if the above text is also updated with the copyright information there? On the OpenStreetMap forum at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=356296#p356296 , the permission to use materials obtained from MML in 2013 is quoted. Can you easily check if the quote in question is genuine?
On March 18, 2020, at 2:27 p.m., apliäistuki@maanmittauslaitos.fi wrote:
Hey, The Land Surveying Institute's valid open data license is at the address https://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/avoindata-lisenssi-cc40 and accordingly the source should be mentioned.
Hey, I would have a question about the use of MML data in Openstreetmap, that the old license of MML is still mentioned there: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . In addition, no years have been mentioned when the data has been used. However, MML's data has been used even after the license change, because MML's raster levels are still available by default in the iD editor and JOSM. The question is whether MML's data is still suitable for importing into Openstreetmap in terms of licensing. In addition, you should know what you should read on that copyright page at the moment.
Ticket#2023021010000013 — Re: [talk-au] Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base
|Provided by LWG:
Andrew Harvey wrote:
2023 meeting times - 2nd Monday of the month for 2023 at 18:00/17:00 UTC.
2023 LWG meeting dates:
Monday Feb 13
Monday Mar 06
Monday Apr 03 - – go to 1700 UTC with daylight savings time
Monday May 15
Monday Jun 12
Monday Jul 10
Monday Aug 14
Monday Sep 11
Monday Oct 16
Monday Nov 13 – back to 1800 UTC
Monday Dec 11
Monday Jan 08 2024
US daylight savings start - Mar 12 2023
EU daylight savings start - Mar 26 2023
EU daylight savings end - Oct 29 2023
US daylight savings end - Nov 5 2023
Meeting adjourned 62' after start.