Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0
Hi Ivan, I would suggest getting in touch with Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team Indonesia. They could probably help in facilitate of permission. team...@hotosm.org is the best way to reach them. Best, -Kate On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Ivan Garcia capisc...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks a lot for the answer Simon, really complete. Ivan. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: In general the CC-by licences require downstream attribution that we can't provide for any sensible meaning of the word, so you will need specific permission in any case, the other part is that the 4.0 licences try to cater for sui generis databases and, IMHO-only, that comes out rather wrong. What complicates your specific case even more is that you will find a wide range of opinions on if tracing from imagery even creates a derivative work (which you need to square with national regulations and case law). The best action is to sidestep the above mentioned can of worms and try and get explicit permission, preferably with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission#Letter_Template3 (the first two letter templates are missing some key points IMHO and while simpler are probably not really enough). Note the letter would need some adaptation in your case since we are referring to data derived from the imagery, not the imagery itself. Simon Am 13.07.2015 um 12:54 schrieb Ivan Garcia: Hi Simon. Thanks for the answer. Just an extra quesiton, doesn't a CC-BY license already allows derivative work of any kind as long as the author is mentioned? Why would an extra permission for that be required? Best Regards. Ivan. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote: Ivan The problem is that it is a legal can of worms. I would suggest simply asking for explicit permission, or at least formal confirmation that tracing from the imagery does not create a derivative work and that the government has no rights in such vectorized data. It is, as you may have seen from previous discussions, not clear if the CC 4.0 licences are compatible (with the exception of CC0 naturally) with the ODbL and this is likely not an issue that will be resolved short term. Simon Am 08.07.2015 um 14:48 schrieb Ivan Garcia: Hi everybody, the government of Indonesia recently opened a Open Data portal http://data.go.id/ offering some official WMS imagery under CC-BY 4.0 license. Would that license be enought to be used under JOSM to trace ways and POIs for OSM? Thanks in advance. Ivan. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi All, I think that lawyers from the provider of the license interpreting the license as okay for use in OSM is no issue. Josh Campbell above is the lead for the project. Currently this project is up for an award, it is not putting the database at risk. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of humanitarian aid and should only be used in this context. 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. Best, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi All, This has come up before. HOT is part of a pilot for the initiative Imagery to the Crowd (1). Representatives of HOT and the US Government met multiple times in all day meetings to discuss what the NextView license means as well as to have the vectors available under ODbL. The legal interpretation by the US government lawyers of their own license was that the initial use of the imagery needed to be for humanitarian use, but it was fine for there also to be commercial use. So basically they can't give the OSM community the imagery to digitize for an initially commercial reason, but the vectors can stay in OSM under ODbL no problem beyond that. -Kate (1) https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed Not understanding what the definition of LIDP is makes it so difficult for me to understand the license. Martin replied earlier and he did interpret it as not suitable for OSM. You can't really interpret part of a license. LIDP is probably a term defined elsewhere. I doubt a tracing is a LIDP, on the other hand, I don't see permission for non-literal imagery derived products (IDPs). Can you provide the full license so that we can see what the classify tracings as? Unfortunately that was all license text available. It comes from HOT context. I noticed that a lot of imagery and data available for that humanitarian context comes with a clear non-commercial clause. I checked the HOT tasking manager and the license presented to users can be found at http://tasks.hotosm.org/license/1 (OSM OAuth signin required) but the usage terms refer to the NextView (NV) License) and it's not clear if that's the same as the usage terms. I've cc'ed hot@ because they should be able clear up these confusions. ___ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hi Alex, You might want to clarify because your email is a bit confusing. My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Yes it is important to clarify the share alike clause, but I think also important not to confuse people asking how the licensing currently works. -Kate On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't kick in here. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Hello all! I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not. I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it might change over the time) and translation of the name. As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way. As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted access. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above. with hope of a speedy answer /Olov ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013
Hi Michael, The meeting time is 1am in Jakarta and even later in other parts of Asia (though I think you are in the Philippines at the moment and are well aware). Anyway, are there plans to rotate the meeting at some point? I often perform advocacy within governments and the United Nations and there are definitely issues I would like to discuss and have more clarity. Best, -Kate On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC. I would like to draw your attention to the following: We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to this list, is most welcome. We've started putting together a remit document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us. You can contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us for one meeting to see if you like it. If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks. In the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right of way route definitions. Do you have important issues in your country? Are you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal reasons? Mike Michael Collinson Chair, License Working Group ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Hi Martin, I appreciate the sentiment, though I think it have unintended consequences. The reason I am asking the questions I'm asking is as part of a greater effort to advocate within humanitarian groups to release their data under licenses compatible to OSM. Often the issue with data after a disaster is that it is locked up and can't be reached in times of emergency. For example there actually was a map of Haiti after the earthquake. The office of the National Mapping Agency had collapsed and where the back-up of the data was not immediately known. One of the reasons for this is they had a long policy of selling that data, but nobody was actually buying it. It is also a slippery slope to make exceptions because then maybe there are other exceptions that groups would like to make. For example I could see some groups not wanting OSM used by the military or maybe large corporations. It is unrealistic though to make these types of distinctions I think. Thanks, -Kate On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/1/15 Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com: Hard to say if it would be substantial, I think that is going to depend on the size of the disaster and what exactly the data is being used. I think with the current guidelines any extraction will be very soon substantial, The OSM community regards the following as being not Substantial ... provided that the extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a similar project. Especially the part not repeated over time for the same or a similar project will be read that if you extract a second time hospitals or schools the amount would add to the number from the first time you did so. This is very sad, I'm sure almost all contributors to OSM would like to not have these restrictions for certain scopes (like HOT). What if we made a change to our license to have different terms for different fields of users? (Or is this completely unrealistic?). E.g. we could release data for humanitarian work under attribution only (after positive voting by the active contributors) terms? cheers, Martin ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Alex, While I agree with the principal that the restrictions on geocoding are preventing groups from joining the OSM community, I don't think changing the insubstantial clause is the way to fix the issue. The clause is there for just that insubstantial use, to make it high enough to allow geocoding in the way that is desired things would no longer be insubstantial. Having an exception to the license however a big undertaking I think is the correct way to approach things. -Kate On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth: On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of the incompatibility of the two licenses. 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because of the incompatibility of licenses. With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial extract (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts would normally be considered derivative databases and would require release of the underlying data with the ODbL. The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)). As you say we have had this discussion before. The insubstantial guideline is there to determine what trivial, inconsequential usage of the data is. On the one hand I suspect that if we (though some kind of consultation process) raise the numbers, it is never going to be enough (10'000, 10'000'000?). On the other hand raising the number at one point essentially creates a new (CC0) licence. We have both a ethical fiduciary duty to respect the wishes of the part of the community that wants strong share a like (there are reasons to believe that this is large group) and a contractual one (contributor terms) to follow due process for a licence change. It would not be out of the question to add a specific geo-coding licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking and up to now nobody has stepped forward and taken ownership of the issue. Simon ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Thanks Simon, On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of the incompatibility of the two licenses. 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because of the incompatibility of licenses. With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial extract (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts would normally be considered derivative databases and would require release of the underlying data with the ODbL. In both cases you are naturally free to simply produce such results on the fly. My reading of the ODbL would seem to indicate that if you for example geocoding on the fly you may not even have to provide an indication from where you results were derived. That is my reading as well, though I think in most humanitarian use cases people are going to be doing traditional types of GIS processes. To me this means they are unlikely to link dynamically (bandwidth problems are fairly normal). Hard to say if it would be substantial, I think that is going to depend on the size of the disaster and what exactly the data is being used. Thanks for your help, -Kate Simon ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Hi All, So I've been thinking a lot about non-commercial licenses. The reason is there are many humanitarian organizations that are releasing data CC BY-NC or CC BY-SA-NC. I've been thinking through the issues with this and trying to improve HOT's points about why using NC licenses is not recommended. I wanted to make sure I have a couple scenarios right and also ask if anyone else on the list has other scenarios they would like to suggest. 1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I believe this is okay. 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of the incompatibility of the two licenses. 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because of the incompatibility of licenses. Is my reading of these okay? Are there other potential use cases you can think about? I do worry about pointing some of these out potentially and then organizations just not releasing the data (perhaps in example 3). Thanks, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
Hi Frederik, On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/23/12 01:24, Alex Barth wrote: Another question that we could ask to enlighten us is: What do commercial geocoding providers usually allow you to do once you have paid them? When you geocode a dataset with TomTom data and you pay them for that, do TomTom then still claim any rights about your resulting database, or do they say, like you sketched above, that their license does not extend to the geocoded dataset? I think we need to separate the geocoding engine from the data to answer this question. I worked for a company where we had geocoded a huge amount of data (millions and millions of records) with one street dataset. The dataset began to be too expensive and we looked for another source. When we switched datasources we had to regeocoded all the records because the original geocodes were derived from the original commercial data source. So essentially it was the lat/lons that were associated with the original data, but not the address data we had input. I'm unsure what would have happened to the corrected addresses the geocoder fed back. We would have fed in the original data again. -Kate Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF
Hi Chris, I don't understand why you think this agreement is unacceptable. It isn't taking any rights away from OSM to use the data that I can see. MoU agreements are a very typical thing of governments and I don't see what the issue is. -Kate On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 03/07/12 17:02, Pekka Sarkola wrote: Dear Friends, I have prepared with National Land Survey of Finland Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) about usage of their datasets by OpenStreetMap activists. Hare is current draft text for everybody to comment: Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter “MoU”) is between the National Land Survey of Finland (hereinafter NLSF) and OpenStreetMap contributors (hereinafter OSM). Background NLSF started to use a new Open Data License for their topographic information datasets (hereinafter Data) on 1st of May 2012. NLSF’s Open Data License grants a worldwide, free of charge and irrevocable parallel right of use to open data. This MoU clarifies how Data can be used when OSM are collecting data to be part of OpenStreetMap database. Usage of NLSF’s data NLSF data can be used at least two (2) ways by OSM: - As reference data: NLSF Data can be used as reference data. For example NLSF’s raster maps or aerial photographs can used as source data when OSM databases are digitized, corrected, validated or in any other way. - As import source: NLSF Data can be imported to be an integral part of OpenStreetMap database. Attribution OSM will add NLSF’s contribution to OpenStreetMap wiki pages as follows: Finland National Land Survey of Finland Contains data from National Land Survey of Finland Topographic Database and other sources, data extractions started on 05/2012. More specific data sources and data extraction dates are documented as part of data and in OSM wiki pages OSM are preparing guidelines for all OpenStreetMap data collectors on how to include necessary tag-information for the OpenStreetMap data features. Reasons to make this kind of MoU: - Common understanding among OSMers what can and what cannot do with NLSF datasets - Clarify OSMers goals for NLSF when using their datasets Some people may say that we don't even need this kind of MoU. IMHO: maybe it's better to have something than nothing. However, all comments are welcome! If the data is licensed in an open way, you don't need this agreement. You are tying mapper hands with this agreement and it is, IMO, completely unacceptable. Who will sign this on behalf of OSM? What authority would this person have? This sets a dangerous precedent that I strongly oppose it. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government
Hi All, I have a question about what would trigger the ShareAlike in the context of government. Let's say for example a National Mapping Agency takes the OpenStreetMap road data for their area and then improves upon it. Those improvements are shared with the Ministry of the Environment. Is that redistribution? Thanks, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government
Hi Pekka, I'm concerned specifically about the specifics of the licensing so I can speak to them, not the ideal situation. Yes when I present I do approach with explaining it is best if everyone contributes to the same map. I still need to know the specifics of the constraints of the license, since I often get asked questions. -Kate On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Pekka Sarkola pekka.sark...@gispo.fi wrote: Kate, Can you reverse this: how about if NMA will improve local OSM data and then MoE will use OpenStreetMap. Benefits for all, right? That is how we try to make it here in Finland. Well, National Land Survey of Finland is not improving OSM, but we (as OSMers) can improve OSM with their data. Rgs, Pekka Pekka Sarkola – pekka.sark...@gispo.fi – www.gispo.fi -Original Message- From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com] Sent: 18. kesäkuuta 2012 6:59 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government Hi All, I have a question about what would trigger the ShareAlike in the context of government. Let's say for example a National Mapping Agency takes the OpenStreetMap road data for their area and then improves upon it. Those improvements are shared with the Ministry of the Environment. Is that redistribution? Thanks, -Kate ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Signing of Contributor Terms
Hi All, Would it be possible to have someone sign the contributor terms rather than login to accept them? If I understand things correctly if I am talking to a data provider who has released their data ODbL they would still need to accept the contributor terms to allow the relicensing of the data at some point? Is this correct? To follow in the import guidelines better I think rather than having them login and dump the data into OSM it would be better to have a copy of the contributor terms to be signed for that data set. With governments giving them an actual physical document would likely be the easiest. Then the OpenStreetMap community could decide what to do with that data since it would be licensed appropriately and have contributor terms associated with it. Best, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps
Hi Paul, This isn't a matter of one or two maps. PLOTS is building a edit in OSM button for their website, there are already tons of maps that have been made: http://publiclaboratory.org/archive?page=1 -Kate On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps Hi, On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: Hey All, I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite imagery. - So let's say you fly photos of an area - To stitch them together you use Google Maps imagery as the base - What is the deal with the imagery at that point? - If I trace the imagery is that really derived from Google Maps? It seems insignificant to me, but I wanted to get some insight. I would also like to know, especially in the context of Jeff Warren's mail on talk. I think the legal side here is easier than the community customs. I have heard both obviously if it's rectified using Google, it can't be used in OSM, and obviously it doesn't matter. I think Bing support in Map Knitter (even though legally it's in the same bandwagon as Google) would have a better community acceptance. Where I tried rectifying something with Map Knitter, Google imagery was useless because of complete cloud cover, too. I'm not a lawyer but I believe standard practice for imagery providers here is to rectify based on a database of survey points and I don't believe the providers regard their imagery as a derivative work of the database. Next time I'm at the city I'll ask them. If you are rectifying, try to get *some* survey points for your warping. ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps
Hey All, I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite imagery. - So let's say you fly photos of an area - To stitch them together you use Google Maps imagery as the base - What is the deal with the imagery at that point? - If I trace the imagery is that really derived from Google Maps? It seems insignificant to me, but I wanted to get some insight. Thanks! -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Best Guideline for ODbL and OSM?
Are the guidelines on the wiki the best place to find information as how ODbL applies to OpenStreetMap? Are there other sources I should be looking at? -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Mixing geoms and attributes (private data and public data)
Hello All, Hopefully my question isn't soo close to Maning's to be annoying a couple hours later:). So I'm working on a project that involves poverty mapping. So currently communities work as a group to determine the poor households, the rich households, etc in a neighborhood. They do this based on their own requirements by neighborhood and everything usually stays in a paper map. The facilitators that help lead the mapping are being trained in OpenStreetMap. We've currently trained about 100 people from communities all over Eastern Indonesia. The issue is there is data that probably shouldn't be public in OpenStreetMap. (Everyone in the houses names and if they are poor or not, where the pregnant women are, etc). We plan to work on tools that allow the communities to put structural info into OpenStreetMap (building type, floors, walls, roof-type), but put the other data in a private database. My understanding is that if we redistributed the whole database elsewhere we would have to release it under ODbL, but if it was under private use within the one organization it would be okay. Maybe I don't understand things correctly! Anyway, is it possible to do any of this without forcing the relicensing of the private data in a way that forced redistribution? I'm assuming this can work, since if it can't we are missing out on a whole bunch of data that communities would love to add about their world:). Anyway, please enlighten me:). -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
