[OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed

Kate Chapman kate at maploser.com
Thu Aug 29 00:24:58 UTC 2013

Hi All,

I think that lawyers from the provider of the license interpreting the
license as okay for use in OSM is no issue. Josh Campbell above is the
lead for the project. Currently this project is up for an award, it is
not putting the database at risk.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Stephan Knauss <osm at stephans-server.de> wrote:
> i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of humanitarian
> aid and should only be used in this context.
> For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to document the
> permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable way in the
> wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what a derived
> imagery product is.

I can document in the wiki my understanding of it. The legal
interpretation of the US government by their own lawyers that the
initial use of the derived vectors need to be for humanitarian use,
after that it is fine to remain under the ODbL license in OSM. The
reason for this is the US Government-wide license for commercial
satellite imagery is not supposed to cut into potential commercial
sales of that imagery. So it would not be possible to release that
imagery for what would be initially a commercial use.

> So why not simply add a clause saying "Imagery is used by the members of the
> HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy. Derived data
> will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the
> contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after end of the
> humanitarian project".

The NextView license is the US Government-wide license utilized for
commercial satellite imagery. It is not going to be possible to add a
clause to it.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list