[OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Thu Aug 29 13:56:58 UTC 2013
Mikel
I believe there is a simple solution, please document the source with
the full text of the licence or with a statement by the lawyer in
question, since the later is unlikely to forthcoming (we probably
wouldn't do that either), its going to be the former. I find it quite
understandable that their is some uneasiness about agreeing adhere to a
licence that we can't actually read.
Simon
Am 29.08.2013 15:16, schrieb Mikel Maron:
> 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 <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130829/02a524fd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list