Licensing Working Group
Tuesday 1st May 2012
18:00 - GMT
Agenda & Minutes
Present: Henk Hoff, Simon Poole, Oliver Kühn, Richard Weait, Dermot McNally, Grant Slater, Steve Coast
Minutes by: Richard
1. Adoption of Minutes of last meetings
The LWG last met April 24th for a long-form meeting.
No objections. Minutes of 24 April 2012 accepted.
2. MATTERS ARISING (open action items from previous meetings)
3. Finalise today's agenda
4. Contact and re-map
ct | users | sets | edits
-1 | 416 | 125849 | 47654248
0 | 220625 | 302630 | 25775436
1 | 65541 | 8452437 | 2078248486
2 | 350289 | 2178332 | 359919469
6. Technical Rebuild
Progress and issues
7. Hall of Shame
Apple - Steve has handed off to Henk. In progress.
- GADM - Simon has reported a response from GADM re our query regarding their non-commercial licensing clause. Permission for 9 countries received. Simon to continue and approach local users involved.
- AND discussions from Henk: LWG note that the old AND source files have now been removed from OSMF servers where they existed. AND has granted permission to keep the derived data under ODbL. The old sources files may no longer be used to derive data for OpenStreetMap.
Henk dropped off call @14:40
- Imports and reciprocal licenses. This is a substantial and interesting topic. Polling for reactions around the table.
Dermot: Seems like “there should be a way.”
Simon: “User terms limit OSMF publishing. How do we resolve this complication?”
Oliver: “Exceptions to the publication license ans contributor terms seem problematic.”
Grant: “Are we giving them data or just changes? Is that important?”
Richard: “Can a local P2 instance help in this case?”
Grant: “What about users with PD declarations?”
This is a complex and interesting topic. It will not be resolved quickly. Without excluding overlapping interests, this may be best taken by a new working group, and will require broad community consensus.
- Geocoding. A few requests have come in regarding geocoding / reverse geocoding. Specifically to request that geocoding be called a Produced Work. The current understanding is that geocoding / reverse geocoding would create a derived data base (subject to the “insubstantial” exemption).
Similar questions arise in the community guidelines.
This is an interesting question and it appears to overlap some with the Indexing community guideline.
How are the search terms sent in such a bulk geocoding licensed to OpenStreetMap?
This topic merits further discussion over time.
Tuesday May 8th 18:00 UTC / 19:00 BST(UK) / 20:00 CEST