Sources missing a license #439
Comments
grischard
changed the title
See #428 Usage improvements: * Show progress bar instead of dots * Add -v argument to increase verbosity * Colour output and better logging Check improvements: * Warn on embedded icons. Disembedding all icons would save 578.54 KB - worth it on a 1.71 MB file, I think! * Warn on missing license_url - see #439 * Error on missing wms/tms tokens in URLs - we've had some missing {proj} before. * Error if neither global coverage nor geometry polygon. * Error on missing max_zoom * Warn on useless min_zoom
|
europe/fr/Auvergne-2013-25cm-CRAIG.geojson : LO-OD ("De plus, pour toutes les orthophotographies fournies en Licence Ouverte - Open Data, les dallages sont téléchargeables sur le serveur FTP opendata du CRAIG. Vous trouverez ainsi les dallages pour les campagnes d'acquisition de 2009-2010, 2013 et 2016". -> ftp://opendata.craig.fr/opendata/ortho/region/) |
|
europe/fr/Geolittoral-Orthophotos2000 « Les données de l’ortho littorale 2000 peuvent être utilisées par toute personne qui le souhaite à d’autres fins que celles de la mission de service public pour les besoins desquelles elles ont été élaborées ou sont détenues. Toutefois, la commercialisation des données de l’ortho littorale 2000 est strictement interdite. Enfin dans toutes vos éditions, merci d’indiquer la mention : Spa clair, y a pas de licence précise indiquée. |
|
europe/fr/Tours-Orthophotos2008-2010 : voir la licence de Tours-Orthophtos2013. Il y a de fortes chances que ça soit la même. |
|
Belgian layers :
I'm the one who is maintaining it. The goal of those layers are to provide a OSM baselayer that anyone can use in their application/website (it covers Belgium only).
Should be removed (see #481 (comment)).
I believe it's open data : see https://www.infotec.be/fr-be/minformer/opendata.aspx
Same service (and so) license as 2016 and 2017 aerial imagery : https://bric.brussels/en/our-solutions/urbis-solutions/Licence_Open_data_Fr_v4.pdf
This service seems to be down ... Not sure it's really useful to keep those outdated baselayers (we have the up-to-date) one in another layer. |
|
Thank you! The TEC cc-by is not strictly compatible, could you get in touch with TEC to ask about a waiver? |
|
I found the new url of TEC services (Belgium) :
The license is indeed CC BY 4.0. |
|
europe/si sources fixed in #712 |
|
@grischard de nada ^^ Pour europe/fr/Vercors-Reserve_naturelle_des_Hauts-Plateaux_du_Vercors-Orthophoto-1999-1m.geojson Sont sur datagouvfr : https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/photos-aeriennes-orthorectifiees-de-la-reserve-naturelle-des-hauts-plateaux-du-vercors/ qui renvoie à http://www.parc-du-vercors.fr/fr_FR/la-connaissance-1110/telechargements-3115.html les deux sources indiquent clairement "LO/OL" \o/ Au taf, My Hero :p |
|
I think all City of Zurich data is under an open licence: https://data.stadt-zuerich.ch/group/basiskarten. We have permission for use of NLS raster maps within OSM editors (but not necessarily for other purposes). The maps themselves are out-of-copyright, and thus data from them can be freely transcribed. Crown Copyright expires after 50 years and all visible maps on the NLS portal are out-of-copyright. They do have scans of maps which are still in copyright which appear in indexes but are not available to view. I'm not sure whether NLS asserts any copyright from their orthorectification and even if they did OSM has permission. In general their problems are with tile scraping & bandwidth (mainly from genealogy sites). RobJN (OSM-UK) may know more, or Central America or Chris Fleming from OSM-Scotland |
|
While trying to get an "inspiration" for writing own license and privacy policy for the source I recently added, I noticed that URLs for the corresponding geojson properties on some sources point to pages that no longer exist (https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/blob/gh-pages/sources/north-america/us/in/IndianaMap2016.geojson?short_path=d88765e), or pages that require authentication (some recently edited sources in the DE directory), or pages that supposedly contain the privacy policy, but none can be found there (some AT sources I checked). I have this uneasy feeling that attempting to make people fix these issues will be like herding the cats. :-( |
|
@alexanderzatko yeah, it is very much a moving target! |
|
@grischard preggo encora, mio eroi ;) |
|
north-america/us/USGSImagery.geojson and north-america/us/USDA-NAIP.geojson are in the public domain as works of the US federal government. I'm not sure what sort of license URL would work here -- the public-domain status is sufficiently well-known that it's often not mentioned. Neither of the websites involved has any mention of copyright that I've been able to find, which is typical of federal-government websites. |
|
Pour world/OpenStreetMap-FrenchStyle.geojson, si j'ai bien tout compris, c'est CC0 (depuis 7 ans !) cf https://github.com/cquest/osmfr-cartocss/blob/master/LICENSE.txt |
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geoportal.gov.pl - sounds like public domain for me ("services are provided free of charge and without any limitations"), but I am not sure enough to make PR. If someone else can confirm this then I can make a PR. |
|
What about removing all sources with unclear license and re-adding them when they are checked? Especially all sources imported from JOSM without review should be deleted as JOSM has no review process and thus it cannot be trusted if they are compatible or not. The reasoning would be that it is much easier to review licenses if somebody is invested to add them to the index and is willing to help. Once a source is included, nobody is motivated to check the license compatibility afterwards. |
|
I'm okay with removing and then re-adding, however I think before that we should improve the schema to better describe the licensing situation. Right now there is no way to say a source public domain, there might be no license_url at all because it's legally not copyright protected. I'm thinknig:
|
Or maybe it can go simply into |
Yes that's the place for the osm discussion, but it doesn't give a machine readable way to see why this can be used, eg. LWG waiver, custom waiver, interpretation of existing license, or compatible license. |
|
Is machine readable way actually needed/useful for something specific? Maybe as the first step collect human readable info for all entries. |
No it's just for us human maintainers, though I'm finding it might be easier to have all this information stored in a consistent format and directly within each JSON source would be ideal. Alternative is you could have an OSM wiki page for each source and have a template with license details. |
As of 2019-11-21, 303 sources don't have a license_url property:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: