<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
<TITLE>Re: [OSGeodata] FOIA and VMAP1 anyone?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi All,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It strikes me that the issues of ESRI's copyrighted material in VMAP0 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is similar to the issues concerning the world country border layer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that is presented by Schuyler in Mapping Hacks, and is available from </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the mappinghacks.com site. There are some differences between the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>detail of the layers (with VMAP0's 1:100000 resolution appearing to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>be somewhat more detailed), but the basic nature of the content is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>fairly similar. Was ESRI contacted to gain approval for the use of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the layer prior to the publication of Mapping Hacks (which seems to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>constitute a commercial use)? If yes, it would seem logical to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>contact the same folks at ESRI concerning their content in VMAP0.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dan</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On 10-Jul-06, at 8:36 AM, Jo Walsh wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> dear Ned,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 09:14:18AM -0400, Ned Horning wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> I forgot to ask about the VMAP0 copyright issue. What exactly is the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> question? The license agreement is in the readme file. If there are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> questions about what can be done with these data isn't it an issue of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> interpretation of the license? Wouldn't a lawyer be a better place </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> to start?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> K, the question here is the extent to which datasets derived from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> bits of VMap0, possibly combined with other more 'open' (in terms of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> rights to freely re-use and redistribute) datasets, are subject to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 'infection' in license terms by non-commercial use clause such as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ESRI dictates for its 'intellectual property' within VMap0.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I agree this is partly a question for a lawyer; OpenStreetmap are also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> grappling with the general question of 'derived works'. But this is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> also a specific question for NGA because -</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> * Markus mentioned in the last meeting he has seen some wording</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> associated with VMap0 that suggested license restrictions did not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> apply. I think this may have been a missing-context problem - for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> us.mil 'Limited distribution' means something specific re. geodata -</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> but it makes sense to check.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> * The VMap0 readmes are at once very specific and very vague about</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> exactly what is copyright ESRI in VMap0:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> [[ These features are the Boundaries Coverage (bnd) edge features</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> representing administrative unit boundaries that have an FACC code</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (f_code) of FA000 and an attribute value of 26 in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the USE field - First Order Administrative Division features. Also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> included are Boundary face features with an FACC code (f_code) of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> FA001</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and an administrative unit name present in the NAM field. Within </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Reference Library (rference) the Library Reference (libref), </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Place Name</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (placenam), and Political Boundary (polbnd) Coverages also contain </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> intellectual</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> property of ESRI. ]]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> That political boundaries 'contain intellectual property of ESRI' is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> a broad answer for a lot of data, which in the worst case OSGeo would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> be unable to redistribute if we wanted to maintain a "truly open" data</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> policy guaranteeing rights to reuse and redistribution without </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> hindrance.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Maybe it's logic chopping to push it this far. Asking ESRI is an</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> interesting idea! I am curious now as to what their response would be.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>> I'm no expert on these maters so maybe I'm missing the point?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Me neither! Perhaps formalised expertise is overestimated. Emphasis on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> open license as guarantee of or constraint on freedom, is legally </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> untested.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> An effort such as <A HREF="http://freedomdefined.org/Definition" TARGET="_blank">http://freedomdefined.org/Definition</A> takes a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> tangential approach. Like the Free Software Definition it very</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> specifically includes a clause "it *must not* limit commercial use of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the work" that must appply to free/open data.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I don't know how others feel about including non-commercial use</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> licensed data in an "open" geodata repository. I don't necessarily</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> want to spend a lot of time talking about it! (For personal preference</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> / IANAL reasons, not dictatorial reasons ;) ) And that's the main</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> reason I would like to know, from NGA or ESRI, *exactly* what, not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> just generally what, ESRI claims copyright on inside VMap0, so it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> could if necessary be removed / replaced with other more 'open' </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> sources.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> cheers,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> jo</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>