Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-03-06
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
6 March 2023, 18:00 UTC
Minutes approved on 2023-04-03.
- Dermot McNally
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Simon Hughes
- Tom Hummel
Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi
- Jim Vidano
- Tom Lee
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
Adoption of past minutes
- 2023-02-13 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
Related LWG discussions
Action item: Tom Hummel to reply to Impresa Italia.
|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 LWG discussion:
Related board discussions:
The LWG had a meeting with the MapBuilder team
- The MapBuilder team seemed that they would address all of LWG's points.
- The MapBuilder team will share mock-ups of what they're going to update.
- There seemed to be an agreement that the LWG would send to the MapBuilder team everything that they have to link to, due to legal reasons.
- What the MapBuilder team plans to do is ok from a legal perspective.
Other points mentioned
- Community conversation probably needs to continue if this is going to be a true partnership.
- Contributor terms on the OSM wiki are for reference.
- Our consent flow is more explicit than more consent flows.
- The format makes it more enforceable: actual text is displayed, which people are forced to scroll.
- The checkbox adds to it.
- At the time of adoption, there was a lot of community discussion to make everything very clear and irrefutable for new contributors.
On the word "proxy"
Suggestion: not use the terms "proxy", perhaps replace it with "intermediator".
- The term "proxy" is used in Annual General Meeting (AGM) voting rights (see OSMF Articles of Association), so it might not be the worst word choice.
- Depends on Microsoft's implementation:
- probably not a proxy case: if the users agree to our linked terms,it is probably a different UI presentation.
- probably a proxy case: if the user passes the rights to Microsoft, and Microsoft has a separate agreement with OSM.
- They seem to go for the first option.
Other points mentioned
- Microsoft has forked the iD editor and hosts it.
- Microsoft systems doing the editing via the OSM API on the users' behalf is no different to use the iD that we host - with the difference that Microsoft hosts it.
- There was a period of time long ago when we did not display attribution on iD.
- In order to access iD on our systems, you have to be on the OSM website, so you are presented with attribution.
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
- 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 Open Street Map 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
Trademarks – any updates?
1. Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update.
2. Guillaume - Evidence of use in Philippines status.
3. Simon - Any new notices.
Trademark notices: OpenMapTiles
Trademark notice about the registration of "OpenMapTiles" by MapTiler.
Points mentioned during discussion
- Renderer - Fork of Mapbox GL.
- They are using OSM data and a lot of people from OSM are involved.
- We know them and there is a related channel in US Slack - it is not a secret project.
On trademark issue
- If they don't pass off as subset of OSM, it might be fine.
- There is a question if they stop using OSM data.
- Currently, opposition can be filed to the trademark registration.
- Co-existence agreement. The obligation is probably on them to ask for one, if they need it.
- Raising the issue: The issue could be raised, preferably by a board member rather than LWG.
- Reply content Respond to the email and say that, given the history, the issue should probably be raised by someone on the board.
Action item: Simon Hughes to forward the trademark notice via email to the LWG.
How to pass tickets to the Operations Working Group (OWG), or does OWG have a template answer?
|Background by LWG|
|I would like to use OSM maps for a new non-commercial science project in Poland (Europe).
Are there legal restrictions on using map zoom? We are currently using maps at site https://meteo.imgw.pl/dyn/ and cannot zoom to level 1 lower. Could you explain me what zoom level can we use?
--- I am developing a web app for independent couriers, and using OSM / Leaflet routing engine to display directions with multiple waypoints. I am using OSM because I believe in your mission, and the philosophy of open source in general, but I also want to be respectful of API bandwidth.
I am currently in development and have no paying customers, but so I can plan, at what user volume / threshold should I consider deploying OSM on my own server?
Queries to legal-questions
Ticket#2023020810000278 — Attribution of Ordnance Survey on OSM copyright page
|Background by LWG|
|A little while ago I noticed that the boilerplate copyright statement on the OSM site for Ordnance Survey data is as follows:
"United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010-19"
However, the relevant clause of the Open Government Licence requires that the years mentioned must be inclusive, and therefore this should read "2010-23", and be update correspondingly at the end of each calendar year.
I filed an issue on GitHub, but was told this was not resolvable by the site administrators.
I also checked with Owen Boswarva, a well-known commentator, on open data and licencing matters in the UK, and his view accorded with mine, to wit, OSM is not currently abiding by the terms of the licence. It doesn't help that there are minor differences between the download site links and actual licences enclosed with the data. Owen's response below:
"On your second query, I don't think it's good practice for OS to link directly to the OGL without also specifying its preferred attribution statement. I suppose technically re-users could then rely on that and simply use the default statement, "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.". However, I don't think OS intended to change its attribution requirements. There is more specific information packaged with the downloads. For example, the licence file with Code-Point Open reads as follows:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
Contains Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2022.
--- I'm aware that this is tedious for all concerned, but I think it is important to be correct in such matters.
OSM is using Ordnance Survey (OS) datasets. If OS datasets are an ongoing source for OSM, we need to update the stated year on our copyright page.
On Ordnance Survey datasets
- Some OS datasets (e.g. postcode data) are declared open and continue to be maintained in an ongoing fashion.
- Some OS datasets might include tiles hosted by the OS.
Licence of the OS datasets that are used in OSM: Open Government licence. A waiver might have been signed as well.
Simon Hughes had to disconnect 28' after the start.
On OSM using Ordnance Survey (OS) datasets
- The OS datasets were not imported.
- Some OS datasets are available via JOSM and iD.
- JOSM at the moment offers layers such as "OS openmap local - October 2022" and 2016. 2022 might be the latest year of the datasets we have.
- As we seem to be using updated OS datasets, we should update the year.
Suggestion: update the year stated to 2023 and update again in 2024 if someone reminds the LWG.
Decision: Update Github ticket https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/3846
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
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.
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: aplissiotuki@***.*** Recipient: email@example.com 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@***.*** 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.
We, as a project, include openly-licensed data from national mapping agencies and other sources, among them: "Finland - data from the National Land Survey of Finland's Topographic Database". See the OSM copyright page.
The Finnish imagery was initially under the NLSFI License (in English) and they told us we could use it, so we had listed them om our copyright page. Their licence has changed to CC BY 4.0 after 2015, and an OSM community member has asked them to sign a waiver, which we traditionally require for CC BY 4.0 data. They seem to reply that they're ok with us still using the data and they're ok our attribution, but they won't sign a waiver.
- It is imagery — different from geodataset, which would be simpler.
- CC BY 4.0 licence issue: whether parallel distribution is ok.
- The satellite imagery covered by CC BY is never included as part of OSM, so it can never be subject to downstream DRM.
- We traditionally require a waiver for CC BY 4.0, for two reasons: 1) Digital rights management (DRM) and 2) to make sure that they're ok with our attribution.
- Keep using and credit accordingly.
- Say to people to stop using the OS datasets. We might have to remove everything derived from that data, which could be a considerable amount of data and would be problematic.
- Update the year in our attribution of the Finnish organisation on our copyright page.
- Reply that, as we understand it, NLS Finland expressed approval of the current attribution.
Action item: Kathleen to write back and have them clarify that the attribution is ok. The LWG to update the attribution.
Ticket#2023021010000013 — talk-au Adoption of OSM geometry as state mapping base
|Provided by LWG:
Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 12:24, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 11:41, rob potter wrote:
Hi, I am representing the state transport department Department of Transport and Planning (Victoria, Australia) - OpenStreetMap Wiki and we are looking to consume the OSM road & rail networks for our operations. Lawyers have raised a concern about these conditions, as the road data use is supplied to our emergency services fire and ambulance. We have not started using the information but we are implementing a system of validation and change detection, then produce an authoritative version for other agency consumption. Unlawful and other unauthorized uses include a clause "Operate dangerous businesses such as emergency services or air traffic control, where the use or failure of the Services could lead to death, personal injury or significant property damage;" and "Store data available through the Services in order to evade these Terms (including aiding anyone else in doing so); or" Please any advice would be greatly appreciated, ultimately we will enhance the overall content of OSM in the Victoria, but really do not want to cause problems later. Thanks, Rob
The Department of Transport and Planning (Victoria, Australia) wants to use OSM road and rail networks for emergency services. They want to make sure that they can use OSM data under our terms.
- Under Open Database Licence (ODbL) terms, there are no limitations to what to use the data for.
- One shouldn't have anything emergency reliant on the planet files, but once someone has the data, there is no restriction.
- They are forbidden to use the services to operate dangerous businesses. If they store data available through the Services, they're not doing it to evade the terms, as they're not doing it to operate dangerous businesses through the services.
- This section is probably to protect our API from abuse. Also, there is a privacy aspect: to prevent the use of personal data to try to identify someone or to build a database of usernames.
Suggestion: Make clear that they should not rely on planet files to be available at any moment.
Action item: Kathleen to reply.
Ticket#2023011110000041 — Attribution approach to smartphone case product
|Dear LWG members.I would like to ask you a question about the Attribution approach to a product.I am currently coordinating with a small company that makes smartphone cases.The product features a well-designed OpenStreetMap display and is mainly produced in small quantities.https://shop.crossfield-design.jp/They are using OpenStreetMap data, but the case itself did not have an Attribution on the product itself, which led to discussions from the Japanese community.I have had several exchanges with the company presidents and we have had meetings.|
They are very sincere, but unfortunately, it is difficult to put an attribution notice on the case itself (see below), so we are trying to deal with this by including a card with the case when it is sold or putting an attribution notice on the product packaging.
The Attribution Guideline uses the phrase "to the extent possible"
Company that produces smartphone cases and had trouble putting attribution directly on the cases.
The Attribution Guidelines include this section:
"Physical merchandise with an aesthetic component using OpenStreetMap data must provide attribution on any packaging, at the point of sale, and, to the extent possible, somewhere on the item itself. For example, merchandise may provide attribution text in the vicinity of the image, or on the item’s label or tag. The text must be readable and include the URL openstreetmap.org/copyright printed out."
Points mentioned during discussion
- The community member who replied is probably wrong.
- OSM attribution can be on a label or on the packaging - does not have to be etched on the item.
- T-shirt with map with OSM data:
- Always physically possible to print attribution onto a T-shirt.
- If there is a label with OSM attribution sewn in - only the owner sees the attribution.
- It might be too difficult to put the attribution on the smartphone case from a manufacturing perspective, then it is ok to put it on the packaging.
Action item: Kathleen to reply and say that the attribution can be on the wrapper of the phone.
Ticket#2023021710000171 Question about providing imagery waiver
|Currently I'm working with a municipality in Bulgaria. They want to provide a waiver for their imagery to OSM so that we can use it for mapping. They currently own the copyright for that imagery. The problem is that there is no "OSM Bulgaria" legal entity to which they can provide it. Would it be possible for them to provide the imagery to the OSMF Foundation so that we can use it? If not, to whom shall they provide it to?
Another question I got from them is if there is some form for providing imagery that they can translate to Bulgarian and fill out? I remember that there was a page on the wiki that showed different letters from local governments that provided their imagery but I couldn't find it.
|Kathleen's proposed response:|
Yes, it should be fine for them to provide it to OSMF directly. Our official address is below.
I don't recall a page with permission letters for *imagery* specifically, vs map data from various governments (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission), but we need a written document that:
Bing imagery agreement: Subcific to use the Bing API.
Maxar imagery agreement: Similar.
On hosting the imagery
- It is not clear if we have to host the data.
- It might be hosted by the municipality or by OSM mappers.
- Additional rights would be needed to be granted in case of hosting.
- We are already hosting some imagery (to reproduce and distribute).
Dorothea shared the OSMF imagery waiver link.
- Ask if they are expecting us to host the imagery.
- Mention the Editor Layer Index (ELI).
Action item: Kathleen to reply and point to the Editor Layer Index (ELI).
2023 meeting times - 2nd Monday of the month for 2023 at 18:00/17:00 UTC.
2023 LWG meeting dates:
Monday Apr 03 - go to 1700 UTC with daylight savings time
Monday May 15, 1700 UTC
Monday Jun 12, 1700 UTC
Monday Jul 10, 1700 UTC
Monday Aug 14, 1700 UTC
Monday Sep 11, 1700 UTC
Monday Oct 16, 1700 UTC
Monday Nov 13 – back to 1800 UTC
Monday Dec 11, 1800 UTC
Monday Jan 08 2024, 1800 UTC
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 72' after the start.