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
