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 <o...@stephans-server.de> > *To:* Kate Chapman <k...@maploser.com>; Licensing and other legal > discussions. <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > *Cc:* OSMF License Working Group <le...@osmfoundation.org>; hot > <h...@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@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
