search

osmlab / editor-layer-index

A unified layer index for OSM editors.
https://osmlab.github.io/editor-layer-index/
Other
217 stars 256 forks source link

Municipal Imagery under OGL-CA type licenses. #355

Open alarobric opened 7 years ago

alarobric commented 7 years ago

A variety of municipalities provide high-quality orthophotos in BC and Canada in general. I'd like to get some clarifications on licensing, before proposing all these source for the index.

For cities with open data, this is almost always a variation on the OGL-CA. From what I understand in the mailing lists, the OGL-CA has been deemed ok for OSM given the attribution we already provide. The way the license is written though, each other agency, province, or municipality then has a slightly different license and the approval process has to start again? Within BC they use the OGL-BC, based on OGL-CA but with a Freedom of Information addition. Again, this was deemed acceptable for OSM imports with a small waiver from the city around the Freedom of Information clause.

I'm unsure though how these licenses relate to imagery and tracing vs importing data directly. Can anyone provide further insight here?

Sample imagery and license from New Westminster and Surrey:

simonpoole commented 7 years ago

Essentially we (aka the OSMF-LWG) would rather avoid the issue of having to look at each licence in question if at all possible, when we are not directly using data, but are generating data from imagery. Particularly in cases were we would have to ask for a waiver in any case it would make more sense to directly ask the source to agree to the first waiver variant here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqLXg1TUlxalAtVE0/view?usp=sharing

This shouldn't really be an issue since what we are doing is a use case that they typically didn't consider to start with.

bhousel commented 7 years ago

Great! My understanding is that variations on the OGL are ok, as long as we meet the attribution requirement, which for this project is very easy.

If you are already working with an agency that has signed a waiver for OpenStreetMap, you don't need them to do that again. If their imagery is using a special OGL with extra clauses, then it doesn't hurt to get them to sign the generic waiver granting permission.

I added a FAQ document to this project yesterday, after the topic came up on the talk@ mailing lists 👍 (I'm sure we will have lots to add to it as more people go through the process)

See https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/blob/gh-pages/FAQ.md

simonpoole commented 7 years ago

@bhousel unluckily there are many CA variants of the OGL including non-open ones, further they typically reference local laws and ordinances, which means somebody has to go and dig them out, check if they are compatible with our intended use and so on. Short version: a PITA.

bhousel commented 7 years ago

unluckily there are many CA variants of the OGL including non-open ones, further they typically reference local laws and ordinances, which means somebody has to go and dig them out, check if they are compatible with our intended use and so on. Short version: a PITA.

Ugh yuck. At least, I did look at the 2 linked to above and they both seem fine.

simonpoole commented 7 years ago

@bhousel well the FOIA clauses have been ruled as non-open as you cannot know what is covered by that. But it is probably less an issue with imagery than with other data.

I did forget to mention one specific issue with all OGL variants including the original UK ones: while typically no such licence makes any representations wrt the licensed material, the OGL is infamous in that it explicitly does not warrant that the licensor has the rights to licence the material on OGL terms.

Unluckily some licensors take that to imply that they can legally distribute data for which they do not have the necessary rights to with an OGL sticker on it. As a consequence we need to reasonably vet that the licensor isn't actually doing that.