OpenStreetMap Foundation

Licensing Working Group

  Tuesday 8th May 2012

18:00 - 19:05 GMT

Agenda & Minutes


Present: Dermot McNally, Richard Weait, Oliver Kühn, Michael Collinson, Simon Poole, Grant Slater

Apologies: Henk

Minutes by: Michael

1. Adoption of Minutes of last meetings

The LWG last met May 1st for a long-form meeting.

Proposed: Dermot

Seconded: Grant


2. MATTERS ARISING (open action items from previous meetings)

  • Grant - Get a license and attribution page link as an XML Comment into these APIs: Rails API. (should be complete soon)
  • Mike -  combine Bing Imagery License comments as a succinct list for forwarding to Microsoft legal.
  • Mike - Incorporate into foundation landing page
  • Mike - Provide text to Grant re and friends in Sept 20th minutes. ?OS or linking to attribution page or both? … liaise with CWG 
  • Grant - DMCA address needs updating
  • Mike - Thank pavel for kindly agreeing to use the bulk of his contributions.

3. Finalise today's agenda

4.  Contact and re-map

Global picture:

  • Older contributor acceptances now 65,740 (last week 65,541 ); declines up to 417. [1]
  • Nodes that will likely not survive the license change: 17.03M [2]
  • Ways which may have to be completely deleted: 1.18M [2]
  • Problematic relations down from 35.24K (two weeks ago) to 34.84K [2]



6. Technical Rebuild

Progress and issues

Still some tests failing. One proposed test is under the “what should we do”. This is to decide whether reversal of street names in Russia and slavic languages is a significant or insignificant change. Discussion ongoing on rebuild and legal.  Other ongoing work on relations and abbreviations.

UMP Poland data: LWG has received an email from Tadeusz Knapik and 8 other UMP contributors emphasising that OSM is not entitled to use or distribute their data after changing our license, and, as we are already aware, some of OSM contributors have accepted re-licensing of their contributions under ODbL but with imports from OSM.  They helpfully pointed out that most of this should be source tagged such that a regexp ".*[uU][mM][pP].*" should be able to identify it.  LWG recommends adoption of a test that looks at OSM contributors who have accepted our new terms and but have imported UMP data, according to to this or equivalent case-insensitive regexp.   Mike: Inform Matt and DWG.


7. Hall of Shame

Apple (if anything)

8. AOB

  • We need to update our DMCA registered agent.

We have corresponded with counsel and it is our understanding that a US postal address is not required, only that we must actually receive mail at the specified address, and that a P.O. box is not acceptable unless that is the only way to receive mail in a particular area. We are now further checking whether there is any stipulation on how quickly a response must be made,  (in case of holidays).

Grant - We also need to have better set of DMCA-related links to satisfy US / UK / German law.

  • Imports and reciprocal licenses.

Ongoing discussion:

Leakage a major issue, i.e. while the principle of allowing organisations to take back changes, it also potentially opens access to OSM data by anyone under a license different to that in the Contributor Terms.

Needs widespread community support, could be limited to only use with a free and open license … this fits within CTs mechanism, i.e. it would be possible to ask contributors could be asked whether they would permit organisation ABC to take back changes and publish under a license XYZ.

  • Geocoding and reverse-geocoding

Geocoding: Providing a postal address and deriving  a lat/lon pair.

Reverse-geocoding: Providing a lat/lon pair and deriving a postal address.

Bulk geocoding: Extracting more than an Insubstantial amount either in one go or over a period of time.

LWG initially feels that under current circumstances bulk geocoding/reverse geocoding could not be reproduced under a different license.  This is something that would require a well-discussed Community Guideline. We also need to consider geocoding and reverse-geocoding as separate issues; there is much more creative IP in a set of addresses/building names than a set of lat/lons.  While not a formal position, discussion suggested that in either case, the resulting set of addresses and lat/lat would be a Derived Database under ODbL and could only be published as such and under ODbL.

To be continued.

Next Meeting:

Tuesday May 15th 18:00 UTC / 19:00 BST(UK) / 20:00 CEST