[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