<div dir="ltr">Tracking back a bit further, there's this thread from the local user group getting permission to use the data in 2012. (<a href="https://groups.google.com/g/osm-seattle/c/XhQwyBlkqeI?hl=en">https://groups.google.com/g/osm-seattle/c/XhQwyBlkqeI?hl=en</a>) Should I understand that this permission should be considered expired? Not covering the data I wish to use? Some other thing?<div><br></div><div>Seeking some clarity so that, presuming new communication needs to happen, that it's granted in a more durable way. I will try to follow up with the other folks from this rather old thread.</div><div><br></div><div>Matt </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 7:40 AM Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com">gdt@lexort.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Matthew Whilden <<a href="mailto:matthew.whilden@gmail.com" target="_blank">matthew.whilden@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> Hello everyone!<br>
><br>
> Thanks for taking the time. I totally agree that the license is ...<br>
> interesting. My interest in the dataset arose because it is regularly<br>
> mentioned by local mapping folks as a good source we can pull from. This<br>
> seems to be largely because of written permission received several years<br>
> ago and mentioned in under King County Washington here:<br>
> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_States" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_States</a><br>
><br>
> I am not a license person so will happily call the license posted as not<br>
> compatible with ODbL etc. But then the question becomes... Does the earlier<br>
> permission we've logged control the issue? My, maybe naive, impression was<br>
> yes.<br>
><br>
> Sorry if any of this is covered elsewhere. I've tried to do my homework but<br>
> there's a lot to chew off all at once.<br>
<br>
Don't worry -- this is all very difficult.<br>
<br>
That permission appears to say that having the attribution on the<br>
Contributors page sufficees for their attribution requirement. That's<br>
great, but it doesn't talk about the rest of the terms. I am guessing<br>
that they have changed their terms from essentially cc-by to<br>
lots-of-stuff-including-indemnification between 2012 and 2022.<br>
<br>
I would suggest that you figure out if anyone local has a relationship<br>
with the county, and have that person talk to them about their license.<br>
That's a tricky conversation, so it should be someone who is good at<br>
difficult conversations!<br>
</blockquote></div>