Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-07-10

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
10 July 2023, 18:00 UTC

Participants

Dermot McNally
Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
Jim Vidano
Tom Lee
Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)

Absent

Tom Hummel
Simon Hughes

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

2023-06-12 Approved
2023-05-15 Approved

Previous action items

Reportage and action item updates

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
Ticket#2022033010000217
- 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
Ticket#2022120510000177 — Club Vosgien complaint – any reply?

Trademarks – any updates?

Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update

Simon - Any new notices?

Holdover items

Where to forward user deletion requests?

I have been forwarding to DWG’s queue, but perhaps that is not right?

Will create a new template referencing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#How_can_I_close_my_account?

Any way to block address in OTRS? Junk mail levels have become intolerable

Awaiting Guillaume’s report. Alternatively, any volunteer to clear the Privacy queue of spam on a weekly basis? It’s 90% spam, and a lot of it in German. Would be a lot faster for a German speaker to clear.

Resolution: Blocks should be requested to OWG at https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/

Any Other Business

Request from the Board: Are there defensive measures OSMF should take to protect the project from patent abuse?

[Any further discussion?]

Done.

Request from ID developer: Mapilio

Background by LWG

Kathleen wrote back:

We looked at your terms, and the first sentence re OSM in the terms is good ("We support OpenStreetMap and allow you and others to use the Mapilio Services, and all the data and content in them, to create, edit and add content to OpenStreetMap"), but there is a question of what the second sentence "You must follow the terms of each entity when you contribute to OpenStreetMap" is supposed to mean, and whether it limits the first sentence. We think you have the best intentions here, but the language could be viewed ambiguously.

We think it would probably be most helpful if you could adjust your terms slightly to make the permission re OpenStreetMap more specific, as that would likely reassure users. Mapillary's terms might offer a model: Rights for OpenStreetMapYou have the right to use any Mapillary image for editing and deriving metadata for the purpose of contributing content to OpenStreetMap. Such metadata could be street numbers, road signs, street names, building descriptions, road conditions etc. Derived metadata may be published directly to OpenStreetMap under the OpenStreetMap Foundation contributor terms. Mapillary images are available under an open license (CC BY-SA).Mapillary appreciates attribution for derived metadata, for example using the tag source=Mapillary or by linking to mapillary.com. This is also a useful way for us to track and understand what type of data and images are most useful for OSM, and build tools accordingly.

See https://www.mapillary.com/osm

If you have other language you would prefer, or if you have any questions about terms, you (and Mapilio's attorney) are welcome to join our next meeting, July 10, 17:00 UTC, on video - https://osmvideo.cloud68.co/user/gui-ztm-dqh

Kathleen responded and offered language for their use, with Mapillary being the closest match to their situation.
As of now, there has been no reply or response.

Template response to missing attribution reports

For review and agreement

Hi <name>,

Thanks for getting in touch with regarding a failure to correctly attribute OpenStreetMap. As you can imagine, with LWG being an all-volunteer group, we lack the capacity to deal with all cases. In most instances, we think that it's easiest for mappers themselves to make the first contact with violators, especially as mappers have more local knowledge of the use. Many do this very successfully. As a mapper, you are one of the authors of the copyright work that we are looking to protect, so you are fully entitled to make these contacts.

In order to make it easier for you to deal with such cases, we have prepared template content for emails to those who may be neglecting their obligations. These are designed to allow you to pick and choose considered blocks of text that respectfully and accurately express what needs to be improved. You can find this content at: <link - did we not put this on the wiki yet? I can't find it, but can add it if needed>.

In limited high-stake cases, LWG can become more directly involved. Please let us know if there are special circumstances.

Thanks!
LWG

Discussion on where to place the template "love letter" (on the OSMF website or elsewhere).

The attribution guidelines are on the OSM Foundation website.
The other templates are on the OSM Foundation website: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates

Suggestion

Add a link from the OSM wiki to the template on the OSM Foundation website, to make it more discoverable.
We can offer multiple versions of the template.

Other points mentioned during the discussion

Some users have decided to update the import guidelines, changing where the discussion can take place.
Mateusz has been trying to create his own template for cases of missing attribution. He was invited to this meeting.

Also see

Action item: Dermot to check where to put the template and where to link it from.

On content

On indicating that individual mappers can claim intellectual property rights
We seem to say that individual Mappers have a right to assert intellectual property rights, which, are exclusively reserved for the OSMF.

Trying to say be empowered, because you are a stakeholder.
There might be people contributing to the project in other ways rather than mapping, so they may not technically be copyright holders.
Main message: Everyone has the capacity to take action.

On IP rights

IP rights is a broader term than copyright.
The copyright in the individual edits remains with the individual mappers.
The copyright as a whole belongs to OSMF to the extent that it exists, and the database rights belong to OSMF.
Mentioning IP rights, would include both copyright and database rights.

Other points mentioned during the discussion

The letter only refers to copyright and it only refers to the individual level.
People adding emotionally charged or strongly worded additional comments to pre-polupalted form letters.
We include text to say that frequently the mapping framework provides an automated method for the correct addition of attribution.

On companies providing map-services based on OSM data and their customers

Companies who have been buying maps based on OSM are receiving emails and online criticism from contributors, causing confusion and noting that this never happened with Google.
Map-service providing companies could educate their customers regarding attribution to OSM.
Appropriate attribution is set as a default in all of Mapbox software and it's part of the onboarding documentation.
In some cases overly creative engineers fail to communicate their decisions to their superiors, resulting in the bosses receiving unexpected emails.

Suggestions:

Replace "copyright holder" with "contributor to project, having a stake in its success".
Add language that helps the reader understand the purpose of attribution and our goals with the communication: enhance the success of OSM project.

Decision: The LWG to add feedback in the next couple of days and determine concensus on the Signal channel before proceeding.

Afterwards Dermot McNally to:

add love letter to https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates or other page on OSMF wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
and replace https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution/Example_email

Broken links in FAQ

Background by LWG

I never have been involved with OSMF wiki so I am not sure who maintains it. If you wantme to fix it tell me how to get an account. ;-) If not, please do fix it. At least https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#1._USING_OSM_DATA links to nonexistant:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Attribution_Guidelines
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Produced_Work_-_Guideline etc...

It would be prudent to check dead links wiki-wise and hold a fixin' session. :-)

Sidenote: do I observe right that OSMF tileserver _tiles_ do NOT have any licensewhatsoever,apart from the vaguely worded Tile Usage Policy athttps://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/ ?Tileserver attribution widget say "©OSM contributors" but links to Copyright and Licensepage which, in turn, talks about the ODbL of the DB, not the license of the tiles.

I kind of remember they used to be under CC-BY-SA a long time ago, but all evicenceseems to have vanished in the mist of time.

Reply by Kathleen:
Dear grin, Thank you for alerting us to the broken links. They have been updated. If you see others, please do let us know. Regarding the license for the map tiles themselves, that was updated in 2020. The details are at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#7._OTHER_IMPORTANT_LEGAL_INFORMATION

Kind regards Kathleen Lu

Fixed by Tom Hummel.

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría

Background by LWG

(I think this person is asking how to contribute Mexican geodata???)

Buenas tardes. Solicito su apoyo amablemente para asesoría en contribución de información a la plataforma de OSM. La cual contempla información de tipo vectorial: líneas (nomenclatura de calles oficiales del municipio de Temoaya, Estado de México, México) y polígonos (límite de localidades oficiales del municipio de Temoaya, Estado de México, México, así como el límite oficial del municipio de Temoaya, Estado de México, México). Lo anterior conservando las etiquetas correspondientes a: - nombre de calle (línea), - nombre de localidad (polígono) - superficie (polígono) y, - notas adicionales (en polígonos). Gracias. agradecería bastante su apoyo.

Saludos.
Benito Romualdo Palma Temoaya,
Temoaya, C.P. 50850, Estado de México, México.

Google translation:
Good afternoon. I kindly request your support for contribution advice of information to the OSM platform. which includes information on vector type: lines (nomenclature of official streets of the municipality of Temoaya, State of Mexico, Mexico) and polygons (limit of localities officials of the municipality of Temoaya, State of Mexico, Mexico, as well as the official limit of the municipality of Temoaya, State of Mexico, Mexico). The above keeping the labels corresponding to: - street name (line),
- locality name (polygon)
- surface (polygon) and,
- additional notes (in polygons).

Thank you. I would greatly appreciate your support. Greetings.

Dermot to make connection

Dermot OSM messaged an apparently prominent mapper there, didn't get any response.

Action item: Dermot to ask Guillaume about the contact details of the Latin American group.

Polar - Ticket#2023050510000189

Background by LWG

My name is Tomi Lindholm and I'm working as a program manager at Polar Electro - a manufacturer of sports training computers, particularly known for developing the world's first wireless heart rate monitor. We are currently working on making OSM based map content visible in select capable Polar wrist device models but because of the limited capabilities of the devices, their form factor and usability considerations, we cannot fully comply with OpenStreetMap (and OpenMapTiles) attribution requirements. Therefore,we've worked on designing an approach which ensures best possible usability, is feasible for us to implement, and yet respects the attribution requirements in the best possible way. Please take a look at the attached material (PolarOfflineMaps_Attributions.pdf) for more details.I would like to kindly ask You whether:

1. OSMF would approve the way Polar intends to respect the attribution requirements?
2. OSMF would require any changes e.g. to the OSM attribution text?

If just possible I would highly appreciate an answer within a week's time so that we couldproceed with the implementation as soon as possible.

--> Kathleen to say we are reviewing, thank you for efforts

Followup:
Thanks a lot for your update. We'll stay tuned and look forward to hearing about the outcome of your discussion. Just to let you also know, we are still trying to meet the OpenMapTiles' one click/tab action requirement to show the attributions, with an attempt to waive the MapTiler's annual exception fee from our approach. In the material I shared the "Map info" screen with the "Map licenses" section at the bottom of the screen takes two clicks of the right center button to get to. We are still checking if we have a button we could use with a long press to get to the screen with the "Map licenses".

Draft letter by Tom Lee:

Mr. Lindholm,
I understand you are still considering what interface options are workable for providingattribution in your application. As you do, we wished to clarify some aspects of how attributionworks.First, OpenMapTiles is not formally associated with OpenStreetMap. While we appreciate thatproject’s efforts to ensure their users comply with OpenStreetMap’s attribution requirements,their statements on the subject do not represent official statements made by the OSMF.Second, if you have not already reviewed the Attribution Guideline, we suggest that you do so. Thisdocument outlines a number of “safe harbour” scenarios that the OSMF board has agreed aresufficient to meet the attribution requirements of the project’s Open Database License (ODbL):

You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated tomake any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed tothe Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, DerivativeDatabase, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is availableunder this License.

The Attribution Guideline provides a number of examples by which this standard may be met.

While these safe harbour scenarios may not exactly describe the circumstances of your application, they stillprovide useful indication of the OSMF’s perspective on the matter. You may find the discussionof splash screens or temporarily-appearing attribution particularly relevant, given the button press, screen space, and connectivity limitations you described.I hope this is helpful. If review of the Guideline gives you further ideas on specific attribution approaches, please feel free to write back, as we may beable to offer additional perspective on it.

Kathleen’s edits:

Mr. Lindholm,
I understand you are still considering what interface options are workable for providing attribution in your application. As you do, we wished to clarify some aspects of how attribution works.First, OpenMapTiles is not formally associated with OpenStreetMap. While we appreciate that project’s efforts to ensure their users comply with OpenStreetMap’s attribution requirements,their statements on the subject do not represent official statements made by the OSMF.Second, if you have not already reviewed the Attribution Guideline, we suggest that you do so. This document outlines a number of “safe harbour” scenarios that the OSMF board has agreed are sufficient to meet the attribution requirements of the project’s Open Database License (ODbL):

You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed tothe Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License.

The Attribution Guidelines provides a number of examples by which this standard may be met.

While these safe harbour scenarios may not exactly describe the circumstances of your application, they still provide useful indication of the OSMF’s perspective on the matter. You may find the discussion of splash screens or temporarily-appearing attribution particularly relevant, given the button press, screen space, and connectivity limitations you described.I hope this is helpful. If review of the Guideline gives you further ideas on specific attribution approaches, please feel free to write back, as we may be able to offer additional perspective on it.

Previous discussion: 2023-05-15, 2023-06-12

Tom circulated a draft letter to them
Kathleen added comments.

Suggestions:

Use British spelling.
Include that if they come up with a creative approach that fulfills the attribution requirements, to notify the LWG.
Ask how often do users boot the Polar Watch (e.g. when running out of battery/once per week/once per workout).
Add the URL of the Attribution guidelines.

Action item: Tom Lee to add links, send the email and cc LWG.

from talk list: ODbl concerns - Department of Transport and Planning, Australia

Background by LWG

Hi OSM,

Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our foundational mapping data source. We are confident that this is a decision will be of value to both ourselves improving the management of the networks (road, Train, Bus, tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the state.

Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating that extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant validated dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal. Our state government has a strong commitment to sharing all data openly. We are currently developing that process and should be in production by the end of the year.

Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl license requirement to "Share alike". You know these companies; Google, Here, Tomtom and Apple.

The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;

Disruptions
Heavy vehicles
Bicycles routes
Public transport routes and timetables

I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and improve OSM.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Robert Potter
Helping people use the power of location to make better decisions
Manager, Spatial Data Strategy
Department of Transport and Planning

[Kathleen wrote back]

Hi Robert,

(Taking this off-list, but including Andrew Harvey who is very familiar with Australian government interactions with OSM.)

I'm Kathleen Lu, the chair of the OSMF Legal/Licensing Working Group (cced).

Welcome! There are a number of considerations for governments who want to work with OSM data.

At a very high level, it sounds like you want to use OSM as a base for data that you add, and then want to release that data in a way that is maximally usable by others, including TomTom, Apple, and Google.
Is that the aim? If so, can you be more specific as to exactly what features you hope to extract from OSM and improve? Would you be extracting "Disruptions, Heavy vehicles, Bicycles routes, Public transport routes and timetables" from OSM, or something else? (road names, road geometry?) It would helpful if you could name the specific features you want to extract and improve or provide a specific example of a workflow.

Regarding the concerns from your distribution partners, can you share the specific concerns that they have expressed? I can hazards a guess, but as Andrew alluded to, there is a difference between them wanting to A) publicly display the data you distribute and B) modify the data you distribute.

(Also, you may benefit from chatting with other government officials who work with OSM data, some of whom are on OSMUS Slack. You might try joining: https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ )

Source: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2023-July/088336.html

No reply to us yet.

Field Name data deriving in part from Ordnance Survey Ireland

Background by LWG

Amanda McCann said I better ask you for help, because she wasn't too sure about the problem. The situation is the following: My local county council started the "Kilkenny Field Names Project" in 2010. (Don't bother looking it up; the link won't get you anywhere important.) They collected field names in the local rural communities using Ordnance Survey maps. Around 2020 or so, the facilitator for their project stepped down, many paper maps still remain in the communities or are in some archive and not added to their ArcGIS map. They have decided not to pursue it any further, because there is also no funding. The problem for a potential data consumer is that firstly, the project is incomplete, and secondly, their data on ArcGIS is not searchable and thus fairly useless. The names are hidden behind POIs on a map, so in order to see the name, one has to click on the dot. Allegedly, according to press reports, they have collected 24,000 names, but I doubt that. There are definitely not that many on their ArcGIS map (which is btw difficult to find).

Now where OSM could come in: We have recently founded a group, the Kilkenny History Mappers, and I was wondering whether we as that group or OSM Ireland could offer to the council to finish the project by transferring their paper maps onto OSM, potentially also the ones already on the ArcGIS system, if the fields were actually drawn rather than POIs put in the middle of the field, because field boundaries might have changed from the naming to what is there now. As I stated above, they used prints of Ordnance Survey Ireland maps which are copyrighted and they had a license for them, but the data we want is only the outlines of fields, the field names and potential landmarks people might have hand drawn/ marked into the map, like lime kilns or wells, where the name is "Kiln Field" or "Well Field". I know they were asked to do that, but I don't know if any of the surveyors actually did. It would be great name:etymology data. (I was not involved in the project; I went straight for OSM.)

How would a waiver from Ordnance Survey Ireland need to be formulated to give us the right to either scan and mapwarp the modified maps or transfer by hand onto OSM? Something including "anything manually added", but also field boundaries, just in case they didn't trace them by hand would be good. I presume CC0 license for that manually added data would be best?

Kind regards, and keep up the good work!

Anne-Karoline Distel

Discussion on the challenges in obtaining and utilising Ordnance Survey Ireland data.

Anne-Karoline Distel is on the OSM Ireland board, as Dermot. The topic has not come up formally in the OSM Ireland board meetings.

Ordnance Survey Ireland

Government owned corporation with a mandate to monetize their assets.
It is quite easy for Ordnance Survey Ireland to claim that because of the fact that it's in their ownership as a corporation, it's not quite the same as government data.

OSM Ireland and Ordnance Survey Ireland

OSM Ireland has been using old scanned and rectified maps by Ordnance Survey Ireland that have fallen off copyright.
OSM Ireland has not asked so far to use copyrighted data from Ordnance Survey Ireland.
Last conversations with people from Ordnance Survey Ireland was before the circular (see below).
Plan to reach out to Ordnance Survey Ireland, presenting the potential mutual benefits and clarifying our intention to collaborate.

Timeline

2019 - EU directive.
2021 - third version of Irish law incorporating the EU directive - binds OSI.
late 2021 - circular https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/212217/bd5cd126-1954-4d65-8b3d-dd5a8398b453.pdf#page=null sent to Irish government departments that tells them how to implement this law, suggesting CC By 4.0 as the default license and not being more restrictive than that.

On precedent: the other EU jurisdictions will have made their decision based on EU law, but their decisions won't be case law in an Irish context.

Suggestions for communication
Mention to Ordnance Survey Ireland that

they did this huge amount of work and it's not getting used.
we would like to use the data, as imperfect and incomplete as it is.
we will make sure everyone gets to know how good the work is and how useful they were.
Propose dual licensing.

Other points mentioned

It is something that has been used elsewhere in the EU and even something.
The OSMF has provided financial support to organisations trying to get open data.
Strong tradition in Ireland of politicians offering assistance but being countered by their civil servants who explain why things can't be done.
Challenge is to find common ground between their profit-oriented activities and our objectives.

Decision: Dermot to raise the issue at the next OSM Ireland board meeting, providing a summary of this discussion.

Next Meetings

2023 LWG meeting dates:

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 65' after the start.

Navigation menu

Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2023-07-10

Contents

Participants

Absent

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

Previous action items

Reportage and action item updates

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Trademarks – any updates?

Guillaume - HOT trademark agreement update

Simon - Any new notices?

Holdover items

Where to forward user deletion requests?

Any way to block address in OTRS? Junk mail levels have become intolerable

Any Other Business

Request from the Board: Are there defensive measures OSMF should take to protect the project from patent abuse?

Request from ID developer: Mapilio

Template response to missing attribution reports

Broken links in FAQ

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría

Polar - Ticket#2023050510000189

from talk list: ODbl concerns - Department of Transport and Planning, Australia

Field Name data deriving in part from Ordnance Survey Ireland

Next Meetings