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

2013-08-29 Thread Stephan Knauss

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
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


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

2013-08-29 Thread 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
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___

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

2013-08-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/8/29 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com

 Their is clear and full understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM
is made available under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. 
 This is stated on their website at 
 https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx(Description tab).


Data cc-by-sa by OpenStreetMap ;-)

Maybe you could drop them a hint, as they seem to be pulling tiles from
osmf servers that should be (c) osm contributors

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


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

2013-08-29 Thread Simon Poole

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