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

Mikel Maron mikel_maron at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 29 13:16:47 UTC 2013


Stephen

> What happens if they suddenly decide 
> that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor 
> non-commercial?

 
The areas when NextView imagery is made available to HOT/OSM are clearly humanitarian need driven. NextView is a USG license and the interpretation is by their lawyers. Their is clear and full understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM is made available under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. There is not an issue here.

> So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license: Can we > have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will 
> happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and 
> covered by their license?

This is stated on their website at https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx (Description tab).

If this is still not clear to you Stephen, please contact me directly on Skype (mikelmaron) and I will clear up any confusion.

-Mikel


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron




>________________________________
> From: Stephan Knauss <osm at stephans-server.de>
>To: Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>; Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org> 
>Cc: OSMF License Working Group <legal at osmfoundation.org>; hot <hot at openstreetmap.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
> 
>
>Hello Kate,
>
>On 29.08.2013 02:24, Kate Chapman wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>I appreciate your work for HOT and like the idea that OSM data is used 
>to really improve the situation of people.
>
>However, reading this it sounds to me we (as OSM) fully rely on the 
>legal interpretation of USG lawyers of what use of derived vectors is 
>allowed.
>
>What happens if a year after providing the imagery they realize that 
>there are companies selling processed data based on OSM and this data is 
>based on imagery released for HOT. What happens if they suddenly decide 
>that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor 
>non-commercial?
>Would we have to revert large scale of date and all additions built on 
>top of it?
>
>I'm much in favor of having the data donor fully understand of what are 
>the consequences of their donation. So they can agree to that and not 
>feel tricked into something later. And the OSM community can build their 
>improvements on a solid foundation.
>
>So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license: Can we 
>have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will 
>happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and 
>covered by their license? Should be not problem at all if they 
>understood it in the beginning...
>
>If they have issues about handing out a letter confirming commercial use 
>of OSM data derived from their imagery being fine then we can't accept 
>their imagery either.
>
>I understand that you probably interpret the license in favor for HOT, 
>but if this is tainting the data in OSM we have to find a different 
>solution for HOT - wost case keeping this data separate.
>
>To make it fully clear: I'm not talking about the imagery. I'm talking 
>about the vector data derived from the imagery. It is absolutely fine if 
>the imagery is only available to members of the HOT  and they use it 
>only for the humanitarian case for which they had been provided, after 
>completion of the job the imagery can be removed again.
>But the vector data has to be available for OSM under the regulations of 
>our contributor terms. Meaning available as ODbL or any other license we 
>might switch to in the future.
>
>Stephan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20130829/7ae6e36a/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list