[OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee <tlee at mapbox.com> wrote:
> Point 1 is simple agreement.
>
> Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every
> possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely
> as any).
>
> Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable
> proceeding under the assumption that "it can be clearly identified as LPI
> data" will be a rare occurrence. It is already the case, after all, that OSM
> contains data that cannot be legally used in certain places and/or
> configurations. One example is reverse engineering data from OSM that
> violates a national post's exclusive franchise could be a problem for a user
> -- clearly it isn't OSM's place to worry about this, but the dynamic is
> real. Similarly, Japan's MLIT (whose data has already been imported) carries
> not only attribution requirements but, if memory services, prohibitions on
> misrepresenting the data's source. Having the data pass into and out of OSM
> would not free users from this obligation; in practice it's not a problem.

That's thoughts also. Good to know about those other examples too!

> The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with
> LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be -- and has been --
> cleared.

Great. People have started using this data and imagery now in OSM.

This permission from LPI is going to help in talks with other agencies
here who license CC-BY.