Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC

[joost schouppe]

Hi André,

I know that the situation is quite clear to you. But it obviously it is not
to everyone. The point of this discussion is not convincing you. It is
about convincing the community. Repeating how certain you are about your
opinion and calling others names is not the way to do that.

The WMS license does not explicitly allow copying. Your opinion is that
tracing is not copying, but this explicit tracing waiver is demanded for
every imagery source used for OSM. A clarification given by SPW is in fact
probably enough, but should be according to some standard legal talk (or
"gibberish" as you will).

It would of course be OK if the SPW added such a statement to their website
er even their main license document. I guess the only reason for asking for
a PDF is that it gives you a single document to upload to the wiki. A JPG
would be just as well. The document is just a way to archive a statement in
a reliable way. A copy-pasted e-mail is much less reliable, though the OSMF
seems to accept it if really needed.
This one document should be written in such a way that it applies to all
the WMS that do not have an extra Access document, hence settling the
discussion for a whole range of products.

It looks clear enough that the helpdesk.carto email address in fact is
authoritative, thanks.

I didn't think to explain what the OSMF is, sorry. It is the OpenStreetMap
Foundation, basically the organizational core of the whole project. I
contacted le...@osmfoundation.org to consult their opinion. I've included
their replies below.
Just like the DWG (data working group) is there to settle data problems
between mappers, I thought we could use Legal to settle discussion about
licenses. I'm glad to see Thomas Bertels taking the initiative to push this
forward in a productive way.



Copied from e-mail with legal:

>From my personal experience the tracing use case is in general not
explicitly covered (or rather the licensors just didn't think of it) by
your typical non-standard government terms.
Before launching in to a longer discussion of what you might/might not be
allowed to do with the imagery and pointing out that this is an area in
which national regulations and case law tends to differ a lot, so you would
need a lawyer with knowledge of the specifics in Belgium and further that
your typical government GIS department employee has no idea of what their
terms allow or doesn't allow :-) , I would suggest simply
a) formally asking the Walloon government for permission
b) getting them to sign a text including the waiver here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqLXg1TUlxalAtVE0/view

If necessary I can get somebody from the board to sign/send a letter.

We've always accepted e-mails, and I suspect that, while we would like to
move to something more formal (say at least a scanned in document as pdf),
 it might cause too much strife right now.

In any case it needs to come from somebody clearly "high enough up" that
you can reasonably assume that he can actually commit to the waivers, and
the text should be as close to the waiver text as possible. The main aspect
is really that it must be clear to them to what they are agreeing, which
will, with most sensible people, start the alarm bells ringing and they
will talk to their legal department before agreeing to something that they
perhaps shouldn't.



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC

[André Pirard]

Hi,

This is the last e-mail I'll write about this because it's very clear
that the SPW allows OSM to trace the PICC.

On 2017-05-11 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, this became a rather long mail. But it is important, and I
> tried to be as clear as possible.
>
> Meanwhile I spoke with Lionel on our Riot channel [1] and with Simon
> Poole through legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org.
>
> If I understood, André says this:
>
> - the license for all the geoportail WMS products is this [2]
Please look at what that file says and at the SPW site.  That text
contains the default conditions, but it says that other "Conditions"
(files) may exist in the "Accès" tab such as for Cartoweb.be
.
> - that license does not allow copying
"copying" has nothing to do with services (WMS) but with downloading
vector data. That is *another* license as I explained.
> - the geoportail team is the intermediary between the data source and
> the citizen, and can represent the data source
> - the geoportail team says (in a copy pasted mail) that yes, tracing
> the PICC WMS is considered consulting and that is allowed
More exactly, the geoportail states in that PDF document you call [2]
that "le SPW permet l’accès et l’utilisation gratuits des services par
tout utilisateur", meaning that anybody can do anything with the WMS
service. It means that it is "public domain".
The SPW further explained in a semi-private official e-mail for those
who do not understand the OSM implications of that sentence, that OSM is
allowed to "se connecter sur le serveur du SPW et calquer le PICC afin
de faire des fonds de plan (=vectoriser), réutiliser à sa guise les
fonds de plan (commercialement ou non)", that is, tracing the WMS
service and put that trace and everything found in PICC to the OSM database.
That is not the license (terms of use) of PICC but an equivalent
explanation of the above first sentence in OSM context.
> So things you could help answer:
> - are we sure Geoportail has the authority to clarify this license? (I
> don't know enough about Walloon gov structure; Lionel is quite sure
> they do; more opinions would be nice)
If you see maps on a site, if you see the conditions of use written next
to them, and if they say
> Toute question relative aux conditions d’accès et d’utilisation des
> services est envoyée à :
> SPW – Département de la Géomatique - Direction de l’Intégration des
> géodonnées
> Chaussée de Charleroi, 83 bis, 5000 Namur OU
> helpdesk.ca...@spw.wallonie.be
is there any doubt that they are authoritative?
> - is the wording used in the e-mail enough?
> - is an e-mail enough or do we need something a bit more formal?
Once again, the e-mail is not the license.
It's trying to make understand that simple sentence of the license which
is [2].
> - is this answer also valid for other WMS
Supposing that "this answer" means "the e-mail", it was written for the
PICC.
But it is of course true for the services for which that file you call
[2] is the license but not if they have contradictory conditions.
> The answer from OSMF is quite clear:
I provided URLs for the SPW and their texts.
Could you please do the same with OSMF? (OSMF?
)
I couldn't find anything leading to what you say.
> - if the license does not explicitly allow tracing, then you need a
> written permission
> - a written document (signed and scanned PDF) is always best, but
> e-mails can be acceptable
Once again, the e-mail is not the license.
Requesting a PDF is quite strange because PDF is a format used to send
to a printer and we certainly don't want to print licenses. PDF does not
contain data defining the format (e.g. paragraphs and tables) and,
beside printing it, it's not possible to convert it or copy&paste it
reliably; that implies guesses and making errors.
HTML is quite OK and better and, while PDF cannot be converted to HTML
(reliably) those who can't live without PDF can convert HTML to PDF
reliably. But it's a dead end.

*We do have* an SPW PDF file, that you call [2] and that I call
"Conditions d’accès et d’utilisation des services web géographiques de
visualisation du Service public de Wallonie
".

> - the text needs to contain something like the first paragraph of this
> text [3]. This contains legalese explaining what tracing for OSM
> implies. Generally, language like this will trigger the person
> answering the request to check higher up in the organisation, so we
> can be more sure someone with actual power in the organisation signs
> the document.
>
> I think this answer implies that:
> a) we shouldn't call other's vigilantes just because they feel what we
> currently have is not enough, as what we have clearlu is not what the
> OSMF would like is to have
> b)  we do kind of have something, so there probably is no 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC

[André Pirard]

On 2017-05-10 11:58, joost schouppe wrote:
>
> I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be
> circumvented, even if the king itself says something different
> than its contents.
>
> André, could you elaborate the statement that tracing = consulting? I
> don't really understand how you come to that conclusion
Rather consulting => tracing.
As opposed to "*copier*" which is what we would do if we imported PICC's
vector data, "*consulter*" is accessing the raster scan images of their
Web servers by any means. "Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la
consultation" means that we can do anything with those images, including
what I prompted the SPW to write in a OSM tailored document when I
recalled what we are doing: "décalquer", "trace", "overtrekken?",
something that we learn to do at the kindergarten together with
"picoter": put a sheet of paper on top of another and draw what is
underneath.
> I'm not really sure about this, but I think it could work if the
> copyright owner creates some official documentation explaining that
> tracing on top of their imagery is not considered copying. My French
> isn't good enough to understand if the mail from geoportail is saying
> exactly that. But if anyone thinks it would be possible to get them to
> add a clause like this, we could ask legal-questions if a model like
> that could work. I don't think a copy-pasted e-mail is enough though.
You can ask them to change their site, but I fear that you're getting a
huge problem on your hands because there seems to be no Web site in the
world that speaks of "décalquer". SPW seems to be the first one to speak
correctly, and you would have to ask to do the same to all the world
sites too !!!
I think that if 99,999% of the users will only figure printing the map
or so, the SPW might prefer to not embarrass those users by speaking of
tracing and having to answer what it means. They may prefer to issue an
OSM tailored version.
> > I made an overpass turbo script showing OSM with the Michelin's colors.
> > I won't show it because the vigilantes would accuse me to copy
> Michelin's colors.
> > While doing so, I noticed that the main axis Ans-Amercœur wasn't
> fully Michelin's colors.
> > So, this could produce suboptimal routes.
> > This is because a few N3 streets are tagged highway=secondary
> instead of =primary.
> > I certainly did not correct that because the vigilantes would say
> that it is copying Michelin.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that we cannot use Michelin to validate our
> own map. But here you're talking about using the coloring of OSM roads
> to look for strange situations. That is obviously OK. If you really
> want to do that in Michelin style colors because that's what you like
> to see, I don't think anyone could be against that (though copyright
> holders sometimes think in strange ways).
For one thing, speaking of colors was a joke but it seems that it
unwillingly proved how picky copyright matters can be.
First, if anything in copyrights is precise, it seems necessary to
clarify what you mean by "validate our map".
Second, please let Michelin themselves decide what they allow.
My impression from their reply is that they just don't mind.
And, if you find it necessary, please add this note to those secondary
streets: It is forbidden to change these National roads to primary
because someone once notices that they are so on a Michelin map.

Happy mapping,
Cordialement,
Amitiés,

André.



___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC

[André Pirard]

On 2017-05-08 15:09, mgwebm...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> André,
>
> I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be
> circumvented, even if the king itself says something different than
> its contents.
>
> You said that Glenn looked at the wrong file, but as far as I can see
> you didn’t provide any other one. Did you ?
At the wrong 3 files.
I provided the other one as follows:
>
>  *
>
>
>   Consulter (= browsing = what OSM does : tracing VIA A WEB
>   SERVICE)
>
> that is *browsing* or *tracing* and the conditions are:
>   o Conditions d’accès et d’utilisation des services web
> géographiques de visualisation du Service public de Wallonie
> 
>   o that is: "Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la consultation".
>   o *absolutely no restriction on what the user can do with
> browsing and tracing the PICC*
>
That is the file that the SPW told me applies to "consulter".
Unfortunately, although it is linked by the other 3 files
,
it just disappeared from their Web (1).
Additionally, I told them that it should appear under "conditions" under
"consulter" and there was no reaction (1).
Anyway, "Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la consultation" is copied from
it I swear and it speaks by itself.

Anyway, at this point of this game, I would like Julien Fastré to fix
these details with the SPW.
When I said about 1 year ago that the PICC server bug that I reported in
2010 wasn't corrected yet and prevented to use JOSM, he scolded me and
said that the SPW are very busy and devoted people.
I would like him to thank me for all this, and getting JOSM to work with
PICC in the first place, and to scold instead all those who criticize
the SPW as I read it.
> From the OSM point of view, Wallonia will need to endorse ODBL or any
> compatible license scheme in order fro PICC (and others) to be
> accepted as a valid data source. It’s an administrative and legal
> point of view, nothing personal for god’s sake !
"Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la consultation" means "public domain".
Isn't that compatible?
Now if you have a high-brow name like ZORGLUB for PD, just use it instead.
> I was recently in the process of mapping a big bicycle network
> (Wallonie Picarde à Vélo (4128428)
> ) and I had to stop at
> 70% of completion because the Province suddenly asked me (why me ?) to
> sign some documents that was completely against the ODBL license.
> Potentially the whole relation could be deleted right now, even if it
> took me hours and hours of work.
That is why I made it absolutely sure that it won't happen with the SPW
and the PICC.
> It’s sad but I’m afraid that until Wallonia move its ass and enters
> the 21st century their will be no progress possible on that front.
(1) They have official Web pages, they have an official e-mail address
on it, that from which I received the official document I showed. 
Anyone can write to them that their ass is not public domain. But I
would consult Julien first.
I myself have no more time to lose with nit picking.

Cheers
Cordialement,

André.


>
> Matthieu
>
>> On 7 May 2017, at 17:15, André Pirard > > wrote:
>>
>> Très long message...  Read throughout, up to the end absolutely!
>> Highly important!
>>
>> Despite the explanation on SPW's site that PICC browsing & tracing is
>> public domain and the report from Julien Fastré, recalled by myself,
>> of what the PICC told him, the SPW would certainly not sue OSM for
>> using the PICC that way, vigilantes repeatedly say that the SPW could
>> and they threaten their mates with OSM exclusion and total
>> contribution removal, whatever the source. 
>>
>> This letter explains all that in greater detail.
>>
>> On 2016-02-26 17:52, Glenn Plas wrote:
>>> On 26-02-16 14:23, Thib wrote:
 Hi,

 SPW PICC tiles layer is available in JOSM for mapping Belgian Southern
 area but I can't find enough information about the license terms.

 Is it allowed to :
 - copy (doing"calc") buildings and other objects boundaries (as we do
 with bing tiles)
 - get address house numbers

 I've found some old threads talking about that interesting source but no
 real answer...

 If someone has any information about it, It would be very useful.

 Thanks in advance.
 Regards,

 Thib
>>> Reading their license, this is not open data as they restrict the reuse
>>> and retain the right to change the license later.  This data should not
>>> be used at all imho.  Now my french isn't that great on the legal
>>> vocabulary notes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look good
>>> to me:
>>>
>>> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/DataSPW-CGU.pdf
>>>
>>> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/CopieDataSPW-CGA.pdf
>>>
>>> 

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2017-05-08 15:09, mgwebm...@fastmail.fm
  wrote:


  
  
  
  André,
  
  
  I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue
cannot be circumvented, even if the king itself says something
different than its contents.
  
  
  You said that Glenn looked at the wrong file, but as
far as I can see you didn’t provide any other one. Did you ?

..at the wrong 3 files.
I provided the other one as follows:

  

  Consulter (= browsing = what OSM does : tracing VIA A WEB SERVICE)
  
  that is browsing or tracing and the conditions
  are:


  Conditions d’accès et d’utilisation des services
  web géographiques de visualisation du Service public de
  Wallonie
  
  that is: "Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la
consultation".
  absolutely no restriction on what the
  user can do with browsing and tracing the PICC

  

That is the file that the SPW told me applies to "consulter".
Unfortunately, although it is linked by

  the other 3 files, it just disappeared from their Web
(1) (am I a lucky chap?).
Additionally, I told them that it should appear under "conditions"
under "consulter" and there was no reaction (1).
Anyway, "Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la consultation" is copied
from it I swear and it speaks by itself.

At this point of this game, the official SPW document sent by e-mail
achieves my goal which is to reassure the mappers that the SPW won't
sue them and to stop the vigilantes' threatening.
Anyone not satisfied with the contents of the SPW Web should
obviously discuss that with them and not us (1).
And it would be yourself or Julien Fastré to fix the detail here
above with the SPW.

  From the OSM point of view, Wallonia will need to
endorse ODBL or any compatible license scheme in order fro PICC
(and others) to be accepted as a valid data source. It’s an
administrative and legal point of view, nothing personal for
god’s sake !

"Aucune contrainte d'accès pour la consultation" means "public
domain".  Isn't that compatible?
Now if you have a high-brow name like ZORGLUB for PD, just use it
instead.

  I was recently in the process of mapping a big
bicycle network (Wallonie

  Picarde à Vélo (4128428)) and I had to stop at 70% of
completion because the Province suddenly asked me (why me ?) to
sign some documents that was completely against the ODBL
license. Potentially the whole relation could be deleted right
now, even if it took me hours and hours of work. 
  

That is why I made it absolutely sure that it won't happen with the
SPW and the PICC.

  It’s sad but I’m afraid that until Wallonia move its
ass and enters the 21st century their will be no progress
possible on that front.

(1) They have official Web pages, they have an official e-mail
address on it, that from which I received the official document I
showed.  Anyone can write to them that their ass is not public
domain. But I would consult Julien first.
I myself have no more time to lose with nit picking.

Happy mapping,
Cheers,
Cordialement, 


  

  André.

  


  


___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC (was: Using SPW PICC layer in josm)

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Sorry, this became a rather long mail. But it is important, and I tried to
be as clear as possible.

Meanwhile I spoke with Lionel on our Riot channel [1] and with Simon Poole
through legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org.

If I understood, André says this:

- the license for all the geoportail WMS products is this [2]
- that license does not allow copying
- the geoportail team is the intermediary between the data source and the
citizen, and can represent the data source
- the geoportail team says (in a copy pasted mail) that yes, tracing the
PICC WMS is considered consulting and that is allowed

So things you could help answer:
- are we sure Geoportail has the authority to clarify this license? (I
don't know enough about Walloon gov structure; Lionel is quite sure they
do; more opinions would be nice)
- is the wording used in the e-mail enough?
- is an e-mail enough or do we need something a bit more formal?
- is this answer also valid for other WMS

The answer from OSMF is quite clear:
- if the license does not explicitly allow tracing, then you need a written
permission
- a written document (signed and scanned PDF) is always best, but e-mails
can be acceptable
- the text needs to contain something like the first paragraph of this text
[3]. This contains legalese explaining what tracing for OSM implies.
Generally, language like this will trigger the person answering the request
to check higher up in the organisation, so we can be more sure someone with
actual power in the organisation signs the document.

I think this answer implies that:
a) we shouldn't call other's vigilantes just because they feel what we
currently have is not enough, as what we have clearlu is not what the OSMF
would like is to have
b)  we do kind of have something, so there probably is no reason to panic
if a mapper says they've been using any of the geoportail WMS
c) we really should get a better document. This document should not only
contain some decent legalese, but also explicitly ask the permission for
use of all the WMS that are under the standard license [2] and have no
extra license info.

Actions for right now:
- add a little section to the PICC wiki pages explaining the difference
between SPW/PICC/WMS; add a section explaining that whether or not PICC is
OK for use is up to debate, not a BOLD YES. The wiki should reflect
community opinion, not "the truth".
- prepare a text and send it out again to geoportail. I've prepared a
little framapad [4] for that

Doing all this stuff may look like boring work, but remember that for
everyone shouting "we shouldn't use this" or "we really can use this",
there are ten standing by confused. So let's stop the shouting and get to
work.
(to be honest: I may need to include myself in the group of shouters, as I
was quite worried when André first started talking about that Michelin
project)



1: https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org
2:
http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/LicServicesSPW.pdf
3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqLXg1TUlxalAtVE0/view
4: https://annuel2.framapad.org/p/geoportail-spw
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC (was: Using SPW PICC layer in josm)

[joost schouppe]

>
> I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be circumvented,
> even if the king itself says something different than its contents.
>

I'm not really sure about this, but I think it could work if the copyright
owner creates some official documentation explaining that tracing on top of
their imagery is not considered copying. My French isn't good enough to
understand if the mail from geoportail is saying exactly that. But if
anyone thinks it would be possible to get them to add a clause like this,
we could ask legal-questions if a model like that could work. I don't think
a copy-pasted e-mail is enough though.

André, could you elaborate the statement that tracing = consulting? I don't
really understand how you come to that conclusion

> I made an overpass turbo script showing OSM with the Michelin's colors.
> I won't show it because the vigilantes would accuse me to copy Michelin's
colors.
> While doing so, I noticed that the main axis Ans-Amercœur wasn't fully
Michelin's colors.
> So, this could produce suboptimal routes.
> This is because a few N3 streets are tagged highway=secondary instead of
=primary.
> I certainly did not correct that because the vigilantes would say that it
is copying Michelin.

I'm still of the opinion that we cannot use Michelin to validate our own
map. But here you're talking about using the coloring of OSM roads to look
for strange situations. That is obviously OK. If you really want to do that
in Michelin style colors because that's what you like to see, I don't think
anyone could be against that (though copyright holders sometimes think in
strange ways).
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC (was: Using SPW PICC layer in josm)

[mgwebmail]

André,

I guess Glenn’s point is that the license issue cannot be circumvented, even if 
the king itself says something different than its contents.

You said that Glenn looked at the wrong file, but as far as I can see you 
didn’t provide any other one. Did you ?

From the OSM point of view, Wallonia will need to endorse ODBL or any 
compatible license scheme in order fro PICC (and others) to be accepted as a 
valid data source. It’s an administrative and legal point of view, nothing 
personal for god’s sake !

I was recently in the process of mapping a big bicycle network (Wallonie 
Picarde à Vélo (4128428) ) and 
I had to stop at 70% of completion because the Province suddenly asked me (why 
me ?) to sign some documents that was completely against the ODBL license. 
Potentially the whole relation could be deleted right now, even if it took me 
hours and hours of work. 

It’s sad but I’m afraid that until Wallonia move its ass and enters the 21st 
century their will be no progress possible on that front.

Matthieu

> On 7 May 2017, at 17:15, André Pirard  wrote:
> 
> Très long message...  Read throughout, up to the end absolutely! Highly 
> important!
> 
> Despite the explanation on SPW's site that PICC browsing & tracing is public 
> domain and the report from Julien Fastré, recalled by myself, of what the 
> PICC told him, the SPW would certainly not sue OSM for using the PICC that 
> way, vigilantes repeatedly say that the SPW could and they threaten their 
> mates with OSM exclusion and total contribution removal, whatever the source. 
> 
> This letter explains all that in greater detail.
> 
> On 2016-02-26 17:52, Glenn Plas wrote:
>> On 26-02-16 14:23, Thib wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> SPW PICC tiles layer is available in JOSM for mapping Belgian Southern
>>> area but I can't find enough information about the license terms.
>>> 
>>> Is it allowed to :
>>> - copy (doing"calc") buildings and other objects boundaries (as we do
>>> with bing tiles)
>>> - get address house numbers
>>> 
>>> I've found some old threads talking about that interesting source but no
>>> real answer...
>>> 
>>> If someone has any information about it, It would be very useful.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Thib
>> Reading their license, this is not open data as they restrict the reuse
>> and retain the right to change the license later.  This data should not
>> be used at all imho.  Now my french isn't that great on the legal
>> vocabulary notes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look good
>> to me:
>> 
>> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/DataSPW-CGU.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/CopieDataSPW-CGA.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/DataSPW-CGU.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> For data to be OSM-fit, you need a compatible license like GRB and AGIV
>> have.
> You simply looked at the wrong files. 
>> So, unless someone claims i'm wrong, we should not use this at all, if
>> you do... and a claim is made, that data will be removed from OSM by
>> analysing the user names involved and their changesets.
> It's amazing how many OSM contributors threaten their mates based on 
> superficial facts or © analysis (1).
> Think twice.  The danger is that the SPW could complain about OSM ("a 
> claim"), isn't it? 
> What could be the problem if they say they will not?
> You simply misunderstood their "access rights" and I "claim that you're 
> wrong" indeed !!! 
>> I'll be ignoring Lionel's follow-up and act like I didn't read it at all ...
>> 
>> Glenn
> On 2016-03-02 09:39, Glenn Plas wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Apparently it's not clear enough
> Obviously, and I'm going to try to make it clear.
>> You can't use it.  It's not a matter of opinion nor I care what certain
>> persons from PICC said to someone else I don't really know.  I should
>> not care either, because that's what licences are for.  They show me in
>> clear language what can and cannot.
> Is it important that you knew Julien Fastré as well as everybody does, and 
> the person he talked to and who explained on behalf of SPW Carto that only 
> copying the PICC is licensed and that OSM does not copy it.  The license 
> regarding what we do is "public domain" (explained below).
> What could be the problem?
>> It's really simple, you check the license.  I'm not having the
>> discussion on what exactly copying data is (or isn't).  
> Obviously, if you refuse to understand what the word "copy" means, you will 
> not understand the word "copyright".
>> I was quite
>> clear on it:  you can only copy data over with compatible licenses. We
>> all know what making a copy is in 2016.
> No, nobody knows before having understood or asked the copy

Re: [OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC (was: Using SPW PICC layer in josm)

[André Pirard]

Très long message...  Read throughout, up to the end absolutely! Highly
important!

Despite the explanation on SPW's site that PICC browsing & tracing is
public domain and the report from Julien Fastré, recalled by myself, of
what the PICC told him, the SPW would certainly not sue OSM for using
the PICC that way, vigilantes repeatedly say that the SPW could and they
threaten their mates with OSM exclusion and total contribution removal,
whatever the source.

This letter explains all that in greater detail.

On 2016-02-26 17:52, Glenn Plas wrote:
> On 26-02-16 14:23, Thib wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> SPW PICC tiles layer is available in JOSM for mapping Belgian Southern
>> area but I can't find enough information about the license terms.
>>
>> Is it allowed to :
>> - copy (doing"calc") buildings and other objects boundaries (as we do
>> with bing tiles)
>> - get address house numbers
>>
>> I've found some old threads talking about that interesting source but no
>> real answer...
>>
>> If someone has any information about it, It would be very useful.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thib
> Reading their license, this is not open data as they restrict the reuse
> and retain the right to change the license later.  This data should not
> be used at all imho.  Now my french isn't that great on the legal
> vocabulary notes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look good
> to me:
>
> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/DataSPW-CGU.pdf
>
> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/CopieDataSPW-CGA.pdf
>
> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/DataSPW-CGU.pdf
>
> For data to be OSM-fit, you need a compatible license like GRB and AGIV
> have.
You simply looked at the wrong files.
> So, unless someone claims i'm wrong, we should not use this at all, if
> you do... and a claim is made, that data will be removed from OSM by
> analysing the user names involved and their changesets.
It's amazing how many OSM contributors threaten their mates based on
superficial facts or © analysis (1).
Think twice.  The danger is that the SPW could complain about OSM ("a
claim"), isn't it?
What could be the problem if they say they will not?
You simply misunderstood their "access rights" and I "claim that you're
wrong" indeed !!!
> I'll be ignoring Lionel's follow-up and act like I didn't read it at all ...
>
> Glenn
On 2016-03-02 09:39, Glenn Plas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apparently it's not clear enough
Obviously, and I'm going to try to make it clear.
> You can't use it.  It's not a matter of opinion nor I care what certain
> persons from PICC said to someone else I don't really know.  I should
> not care either, because that's what licences are for.  They show me in
> clear language what can and cannot.
Is it important that you knew Julien Fastré as well as everybody does,
and the person he talked to and who explained on behalf of SPW Carto
that only copying the PICC is licensed and that OSM does not copy it. 
The license regarding what we do is "public domain" (explained below).
What could be the problem?
> It's really simple, you check the license.  I'm not having the
> discussion on what exactly copying data is (or isn't).  
Obviously, if you refuse to understand what the word "copy" means, you
will not understand the word "copyright".
> I was quite
> clear on it:  you can only copy data over with compatible licenses. We
> all know what making a copy is in 2016.
No, nobody knows before having understood or asked the copyright owner
what he means with "copy" (1).
And many self-appointed vigilantes do not even do that.
> I'm almost pulling out my hair btw, because you're not making the
> correct conclusions.
>
> You can NOT copy from data sources with incompatible licenses, having a
> high five from someone at PICC does not count as a license.
>
> Glenn

What "copying" means and what can be done by "tracing" is rather clearly
defined in the Conditions on their site
.
With PICC, one can do two things (see the titles of the Web page):

  *


  Obtenir une copie de la donnée (= get a copy of the data)

that is *copying* (downloading files) and the conditions are:
  o Conditions générales d’accès à l’obtention d’une copie numérique
des données géographiques numériques du Service public de
Wallonie


  o Conditions particulières d’accès  à l’obtention d’une copie
numérique d’une donnée géographique numérique du Service public
de Wallonie –Type B1


  o Conditions générales d’utilisation des données géographiques
numériques du Service public de Wallonie


  o *that is a pay license signe