Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-01-08

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
8 January 2024, 18:00 UTC

Participants

Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
Dermot McNally
Simon Hughes
Tom Hummel
Tom Lee
Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)

Absent

Jim Vidano

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

2023-12-11 Approved

Previous action items

Reportage and action item updates

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Reports in OTRS:

Ticket#2021081210000057 printed maps with false copyright
Ticket#2022011910000082 interparcel.com: Dermot Emailed them on 10th Nov, no reply
Ticket#2022012610000149 https://poster.printmijnstad.nl/editor/city
Ticket#2022033010000217
- complaint that Aberdeen city council may not be attributing correctly – https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/news/consultation-starts-street-improvements-ashgrove-road
- Note that Aberdeen credits Ordnance Survey, so possible OS is using OSM as one of many sources and the full attribution is not getting carried through
Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop
- Hermes UK changed name to evri. So this is an old issue.
Ticket#2022062610000078 -
- Härryda, Sweden, uses OpenStreetMap for an app they developed. Inside the app there are no license references to OSM.
- You can see the app on the Google Apps store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=se.harryda.medborgar.app&gl=US
Ticket#2021120810000146 mondialrelay.fr not attributing correctly
Ticket#2022120510000177 — Club Vosgien complaint – any reply?

Trademarks – any updates?

UMBRAOSM

UMBRAOSM UNIÃO DOS MAPEADORES BRASILEIROS DO OPENSTREETMAP

Trademark registration of "UMBRAOSM UNIÃO DOS MAPEADORES BRASILEIROS DO OPENSTREETMAP" flagged by Simon Hughes.

Suggestions

Oppose the trademark application, as the deadline for opposition is on 22 January 2024, and suggest to them to become a Local Chapter.
If they register as a local chapter, OSMF can sign an agreement allowing them to register the trademark. The local chapter agreement includes a clause about return of trademark assets, if there is an issue.

Points mentioned during discussion

The trademark application seems to come from OSM community members – they are not a Local Chapter yet.
Kauê de Moraes Vestena gave the September 2024 board meeting presentation and we have his email as well.
More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Umbraosm and https://t.me/grupoumbraosm

Guillaume messaged UmbraOSM on Telegram during the meeting.

Action item: Kathleen Lu to contact Lawdit and enquire about the cost estimate for opposing the trademark registration by UMBRAOSM.

Geolytica

Initial email to LWG

Sorry if this ruins anyones Sunday.

My employer buys POI data from Geolytica. I took a look at it yesterday. It's full of OSM data, I've attached a small sample, grepped for "local knowledge". I noticed because "Source_URL" is basically a one to one copy of OSM. I can provide the full dataset if required, but this is probably the biggest ODBL violation ever. I have no idea how many Geolytica customers there are.

https://poidata.xyz/

Previous LWG discussions: 2023-12-11, 2023-10-16, 2023-09-11, 2023-10-16, 2023-11-13

Geolytica said that they would contact OSMF directly.

Response from Geolytica: They claim to have resolved all issues (but did not explain how).
Can someone investigate and find some more examples?

Issues

They might have old data from OSM, which has been since updated in OSM, so it won’t be easily identifiable.
Some of their data might be the same in OSM and in other sources.
Their sample data might not be as current as the data their sell.

Geolytica sample data

Geolytica has updated their sample data, since we contacted them. Latest update of samples: 20 December 2023.
Some of the US data had appropriate labels for the sources (US government or chain names). This was not true in some of the other countries in the sample data.

Suggestions

Check the history of data points in OSM when doing the comparisons.
- Do not disclose to Geolytica the indicators to identify some of the OSM data.
Simon Hughes to have a call with head of Engineering at TomTom.

Next steps

Guillaume Rischard to re-download all their sample data and check how many of the entries changed to identify level of efforts. Look at other entries.
Simon Hughes to ask the TomTom engineering team to compare the Geolytica dataset provided to TomTom with the Geolytica sample data, which allegedly is now free of OSM data.

Microsoft MapBuilder

Background

The Microsoft MapBuilder was presented to the OSMF board and to Advisory Board members during November 2021: Microsoft presentation - "MapBuilder, an experiment to build the best map" during an Advisory Board meeting. Its initial implementation allowed some Microsoft users to submit changes to the OSM data via a single account, instead of having one account per individual contributor. This led to the single Map builder user OSM account getting a block by the Data Working Group (DWG) on February 2022.

The Data Working Group (DWG), after a request by the board, sent a list of requirements for contributions to OSM via external services - such as the Microsoft MapBuilder - for the contributor to be a meaningful part of the community, including:

Ability to be contacted through means that OSM offers, e.g. messages on changesets created by the individual.
Being aware of contributing to OSM.
Consenting to our licence terms.
Being able to be moderated/blocked - vandalism shouldn't be able to slip under the radar through a common account.
Being able to delete all contributions by a particular user.

There has been communication between Microsoft, individual board members and the DWG, and at least two online meetings in 2022 with some members of the OSMF board: on 2022-03-03 and on 2022-06-20. The current implementation of MapBuilder does not use a single account for all of the edits submitted to OSM, but there are other concerns by the DWG, the board and some community members. The latest meeting between Microsoft, DWG and board members seems to have taken place in January 2022.

Related LWG discussions:

2023-09 From Microsoft re Mapbuilder (see email below)
2023-05 Bing Mapbuilder – is LWG’s portion complete?
2023-04 Bing MapBuilder
2023-03 Bing MapBuilder
2023-02 Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2023-02-13#Board_business_-_Bing MapBuilderComplaint_regarding_Bing_MapBuilder|Board business - Complaint regarding Bing MapBuilder]]

Related board discussions:

2023-01 Any other business: Microsoft's MapBuilder (mid-month board chat, not open to observers)
2022-06 Reportage: MapBuilder implementation proposal
2022-03 Contributions without individual OSM accounts Public board meeting, mid-month board chat, not open to observers
2022-02 Contributions without individual OSM accounts Public board meeting, board chat, not open to observers
2022-01 Contributions without individual OSM accounts
2021-11-12 Editing without an OSM account (mid-month board chat, not open to observers)
2021-11-02 Microsoft presentation - MapBuilder, an experiment to build the best map (during an Advisory Board meeting)

From Microsoft: We prepared changes for OSM login and signup screens as we discussed before (it covers your comments):

Re-arrange login and signup screens as discussed in #4128 by milan-cvetkovic · Pull Request #4455 · openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website · GitHub

Could you please confirm on the GitHub issue that you are aware of these changes?

Microsoft

Kirill Fedotov (Microsoft) provided the new designs for the Microsoft MapBuilder sign-up screens.
They seem to be looking for the final approval of the designs, before release.

This issue is currently not looked by the board.

On OSM account sign-ups through MapBuilder

Valid point that the sign up process is difficult, especially when using external apps.
The persons’ emails are proxied individually, so any communication from us should reach them. Failure of proxy infrastructure would lead to dead end.

On hypothetical case of MapBuilder users who don’t want to be contacted by us

Contacting them is covered by our terms of use, which they have agreed to.
Cases where they are unreachable: this is not different from other emails provider going down. If Microsoft would go down, we would get ample notice.
Cases where people lose interest: this is normal and the contributor terms are built to account for that scenario. For example, in case of a licence change, not everyone is required to vote.

Concern: Proxying initiative goes down

Probably we would get some warning.
Low probability. They don’t do proxying emails just for OSM.

Action item: Kathleen Lu to reply to Kirill Fedotov that the new MapBuilder designs for OSM account sign-ups look good.

Meeting with Brigitte Lutz/Austrian gov and OSMF Austria Local Chapter - Ticket#2023110610000184 related

Background. Related to: Importing Austrian governmental data

Related to the action item "Kathleen to email that German-speaking LWG members are happy to have a conversation with Brigette and discuss compatibility." and the issue of importing Austrian governmental data, raised by Markus Mayr (emails below).

Emails provided by LWG. Bold as in the initial email.

Dear Roland!
Dear OSM-LWG!

(I'm writing in English since I'm unsure if the recipients of "legal-questions@osmfoundation.org" can understand German.)

Thank you for reaching out! I as the chairman of OpenStreetMap Austria as well as other members of the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association are excited by your proposal.

First I want to explain the organisational structure of OpenStreetMap, our point of view and also our limits:

OpenStreetMap is an NGO registered in the UK. It is administered by the "OpenStreetMap Foundation" (https://osmfoundation.org). There are multiple so-called "Local Chapters" of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in various countries of the world which serve as a point of contact. These local chapters are independent associations which have signed a memorandum of understanding with the OpenStreetMap Foundation. OpenStreetMap Austria ("OSM-AT") is the local chapter for Austria. Each local chapter performs activities on their own to support the OpenStreetMap, which have to be in accordance to the rules of the OpenStreetMap.

The problem at hand

The problem for the inconsistencies of the licenses are twofold:

It is not 100% clear if the attribution of a single data provider as it is done by OpenStreetMap (mentioning the data provider on a collective wiki-page) is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the "BY" attribution. It might be, or might not be, so the recommendation is to play it safe and directly ask the data provider. This usually is no problem.
But the second point, which you mentioned correctly, is the more complicated one: ODbL allows the DRM restricted redistribution as long as the same data can also be accessed by a way that is not DRM-restricted. Sticking to your example, this is not because of a specific software, but because of the delivery mechanism the software is using to obtain its (map-)data. In case of this OSM-App, the user has to pay to use the more comfortable way to just tap the "download map" button inside the app. The free alternative provided is to log into an ftp-Server and download the map-file manually onto the smartphone. The result is the same, the app itself is free in both cases.

I personally think that your line of argumentation is valid, but I am not the one to decide, more on that further below.

What happended so far:

The Austrian LocalChapter is voluntarily serving as a point of contact for questions, mediating conflicts, organizer of meetings and doing lots of promotional work.

There have been lots of discussions about the compatibility of CC-BY with the ODbL already (e.g. https://discuss.okfn.org/t/maintenance-and-future-of-the-open-data-commons-licences/4460/31 or https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/freigabe-des-osterreichischen-kataster-fur-osm/8235/9). This post from the year 2017 on the OpenStreetMap Foundations blog describes the still-standing "order" of how to deal with data licensed by CC-BY: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ This is: let the data-provider sign a waiver to explicitly allow the CC-BY licensed dataset to be incorporated into the OpenStreetMap.

Because this topic repeatedly spawned discussions within the Austrian OpenStreetMap community and the state of Austria started to adopt the CC-BY license as a base for all its OpenGovernmentData, the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association increased its efforts to to point out the incompatibilities of the two licenses and got into contact with the national OpenGovernmentData-Provider (Brigitte Lutz) to obtain the required legal waiver to make it possible to integrate Austrias OpenGovernmentData into OpenStreetMap. We (but also OpenStreetMap mappers individually which are not members of the Austrian OSM-Associaion) have been in contact with multiple public offices of which some even were directly asking us about how to make their OpenGovernmentData compatible with OpenStreetMap. But in the context of a nation-wide common licensing scheme, we were not able to obtain individual waivers.

The last two years the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association was trying to get this waiver (we provided templates) directly from the Austrian OpenGovernmentData board. By this all Austrian OpenGovernmentData would become compatible with OpenStreetMap.

Maybe the reason for the national OpenGovernmentData provider to stick to the CC-BY without additional waiver is the mention of the CC-BY license as a possibility in the european (EU) PSI-regulation (see Art.4, Abs.3 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2023.019.01.0043.01.DEU&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2023%3A019%3AFULL)? It seems like the CC-BY is interpreted as the only allowed option.

Where to go from there

Brigitte Lutz recommending a legal assessment seems to be the direct consequence of our efforts to asking for a signed waiver. A nation-wide (or even EU-wide?) solution would also be our preferred solution. If a legal assessment which can nullify inconsistencies between the two licenses can be created, this would be great news and the Austrian OpenStreetMap Assocciation supports this solution.

But it is not the Austrian OpenStreetMap association that can decide on this - for this reason I have included the OpenStreetMap Foundations legal contact ("legal-questions@osmfoundation.org") in the recipients of this email.

I want to ask the Licensing Working Group of the OpenStreetMap Foundation to pick up this topic and clarify if a legal assessment would make it possible to use Austrias CC-BY licensed OpenGovernmentData in OpenStreetMap?

Best regards,
Markus Mayr (ScubbX)
OpenStreetMap Austria

> Am 27.10.23 um 18:48 schrieb Roland Alton:
> Lieber Markus Mayr, > > ich engagiere mich seit vielen Jahren gemeinsam mit Alexander Baratsits für Creative Commons in Österreich. Wir wurden von Brigitte Lutz als OGD Koordinatorin angefragt, ob wir eine Art Stellungnahme / Gutachten verfassen können, das die Nutzung von Open Data in OSM prinzipiell erlaubt. > > Sie meinte: > >> Wir wollen vermeiden, dass OSM’ler immer wieder bei bei einzelnen Organisationen (datenverantwortlichen Stellen) anfragen – die meisten Hausjuristen lehnen es jedoch ab, eine schriftliche Zustimmung zu geben – wird als unverhältnismäßig bzw. nicht notwendig erachtet. >> >> Nun hätten wir die Idee, dass wir Euch beauftragen, ein solches Gutachten zu erstellen, das aussagt, dass die unter CC BY 3.0 AT bzw. CC BY 4.0 Lizenz veröffentlichten Daten in der OpenStreetMap im Rahmen der dort geltenden ODbL 1.0 Lizenz eingepflegt und benutzt werden dürfen. – Genau das, was OSM möchte und dass dies an sie adressiert und veröffentlicht wird. > > Ich denke wir müssten so vorgehen, dass wir uns von euch nochmal erkären lassen, welche downstream restrictions in der Praxis tatsächlich relevant wären, welche die ODbL vorsieht. Wir könnten dann versuchen zu argumentieren, dass eine Verwaltungseinheit, welche OD bereit stellt, im Sinne der Verbreitung der Open Data Informationen kein Problem mit einer Einschränkung der Verfügbarkeit haben muss und dass sie dies auch in anderen Kontexten üblicherweise zulassen. > > Es geht also darum zu klären, wann DRM o.ä. bei OSM Daten verwendet wird: > > ODbL: > >> If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures. > Geht es da zB um die OSM App, welche auch im Google Playstore gegen Gebühr landet, aber im F-Droid frei ist? > > Weil be CC-by haben wir ja: > >> No downstream restrictions . You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. > >Eine mögliche Schlussfolgerung wäre, dass nachdem es ja immer eine OSM Version ohne DRM geben wird, ist meine Möglichkeit auf das Material zuzugreifen prinzipiell ja nie eingeschränkt, ausser vielleicht auf einem bestimmten Device. > >Gerne auch einen Besprechungstermin - hier sind mögliche Zeitslots von mir https://faircloud.eu/nextcloud/index.php/apps/appointments/pub/S6HQ3XIFEQ%3D%3D/form > > > Gruss,
> Roland > > > Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > > *Von:* *EXTERN* Markus Mayr
> *Datum:* 5. Juli 2023 um 13:41:50 MESZ
> *An:* Lutz Brigitte
> *Kopie:* "OSM-AT Vorstand." > > > > Hallo Brigitte, > > *Idealversion:* > > Ich habe eine Vorlage zusammengestellt, die formal und inhaltlich das Optimum einer OSM-Erlaubnis darstellt. Diese liest sich dafür vielleicht aber auch etwas abschreckend, weil dort eine Paragraphennummer genannt wird. Unter dem ersten Punkt hätte ich vorgesehen, dass eine gewünschte Form der Attributierung eingetragen werden kann (dort wo "/[BEISPIELEINTRAGUNG_LAUT TITELKONVENTION_HIER_EINFÜGEN]/" steht), dies ist aber von uns aus nicht zwigend notwendig und kann auch gerne gelöscht werden. Ich kann mir allerdings vorstellen, dass ihr das gerne spezifizieren möchtet. /(/Anhang: /vorlage.docx)/ > > *Weniger spezifische Version:* > > Wenn dieser Vorschlag gar nicht geht, könnte auch ein signiertes (digial oder auch analog) Dokument genügen, welches einfach bestätigt, dass die data.gv.at Daten unter den Bedingungen und der Lizenz der OpenStreetMap für diese verwendet werden dürfen. Das hätte die selbe Aussage, ist aber weniger spezifisch und auf Nachfrage würde man dann wieder bei den beiden Punkten von meiner Vorlage landen. Dennoch habe ich eine Vorlage für diese weniger spezifische Version mit angehängt. /(/Anhang: /vorlage_unspezifisch.docx)/ > > Wir kommen mit beiden Varianten klar, finden die "Idealversion" aber besser, weil diese eindeutiger ist. Gerne kann ich noch Änderungen vornehmen und/oder wir sprechen hier in Salzburg nochmals darüber. > > lg, Markus

Brief summary:
The Austrian Local Chapter was trying to get a waiver signed by an Austrian governmental agency in order to be able to import governmental datasets into OSM and the governmental agency was saying that the waiver was not necessary. Discussion between the two sides to find a satisfactory conclusion.

The date was formalised – Neither Dermot McNally nor Tom Hummel could attend.
The person wanted to reschedule but Tom did not receive any follow up.Important to be in contact with governmental agencies, as they release data to the public.

Action item: Tom Hummel to reply to the last email about rescheduling the meeting regarding the Austrian governmental datasets , cc Dermot and try to schedule a new date.

Related: Tom Hummel to contact a lawyer from the German local chapter, and get his opinion on the general stance of mid-level governmental agencies. Estimated to have a response by early December.

The topic will be re-visited in February.

Queries to legal-questions

Organic Maps app feature - Ticket#2023112510000086

Background

This project https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/ added this feature https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/6523/commits/51b3fc992e66e49b4c9a77e3d3fb05d99027baf5 which violates your license.

(One type of POIs must be either from OSM or from external source, not both)

Please do something in case of this.

The Organic Maps app uses OSM data. Clicking on a hotel shows photos, reviews and booking through Kayak, through an affiliate link to open Kayak, so Organics Maps would earn something. The question is whether they created a non-compliant dataset with data from both Kayak and OSM.

Points mentioned during discussion

Unclear how augmentation of OSM data is made and if they add hotels from Kayak that we don't have, or if they correct the hotels’ positions.
This is like horizontal layers.
The email statement that one type of POIs must either be from OSM or external source is not true.
- It is most likely that they are adding Kayak links to the hotels they have from OSM, rather than conflating hotels.

Action item: Kathleen Lu to reply to the reporter that, per horizontal layers, what was done with the Organic Maps feature related to https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/6523/commits/51b3fc992e66e49b4c9a77e3d3fb05d99027baf5 is fine for data about hotel booking, and enquire about further concerns.

App "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS" - Email to legal@osmfoundation

Background

Misleading app "OSM" on Google Play, renamed version of OpenMultiMaps. It's called "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS".

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.immaginetdev.openmaps

Here is the app they're republishing and renaming: https://framagit.org/tom79/openmaps

OpenMultiMaps was renamed on Google Play as "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS".
It seems to be a wrapping of somebody else's app.
Uses OSM trademarks.

Action item: Kathleen to perform a Google report and ask them to take the "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS" app down.

Matomo tracking on www.osm.org Ticket#2023122410000102

Background

I would like to ask for clarification with regards OSMF using matomo for user tracking and the stated privacy policy.

With regards to:
When you visit an OSMF website, access any of the services via a browser or via applications that utilize the provided APIs, records of that use are produced, we collect information about your browser or application and your interaction with our website, including (a) IP address, (b) browser and device type, (c) operating system, (d) referring web page, (e) the date and time of page visits, and (f) the pages accessed on our websites.

Question 1: I have noticed collection of the following plugin information:
plugins used by the visitor can be specified by setting the following parameters to 1: fla (Flash), java (Java), dir (Director), qt (Quicktime), realp (Real Player), pdf (PDF), wma (Windows Media), gears (Gears), ag (Silverlight). Which does not seem to be included in the privacy policy.

Question 2:I have noticed collection of the following performance information: pf_net — Network time. How long it took to connect to server.
pf_srv — Server time. How long it took the server to generate page.
pf_tfr — Transfer time. How long it takes the browser to download the response from the server
pf_dm1 — Dom processing time. How long the browser spends loading the webpage after the response was fully received until the user can start interacting with it.
pf_dm2 — Dom completion time. How long it takes for the browser to load media and execute any Javascript code listening for the DOMContentLoaded event.
pf_onl — Onload time. How long it takes the browser to execute Javascript code waiting for the window.load event.

Which again, does not seem to be included in the privacy policy.

Question 3: I have noticed collection of the following device information:
res — The resolution of the device the visitor is using
Which again, does not seem to be included in the privacy policy.

Question 4: With regards to "How can you control the processing of your data and reduce privacy related issues" section.
Is there a way for me to opt-out of matomo tracking? Or is such tracking mandatory for all the users? I have not received any tracking/cookie consent screen when visiting the www.openstreetmap.org website.

Question 5: On collection of user IP addresses.
Does OSMF ever anonymize visitors IP addresses?
If yes, is there a delay after which old IP addresses are anonymized?

Question 6: For how long is matomo tracking information retained by OSMF?

Points mentioned during discussion

The information supplied in the email can be determined by config files send to the browsers.
A lot of the things listed in the email would not be mentioned in the privacy policy, as they are not personal data.
OWG can ascertain about the information collected.
Users don’t get a cookie banner, as we use only necessary cookies.
Plugins can be used to fingerprint users by their browser.

On whether users can opt out of Matomo tracking.

No, it’s necessary.

> Question 5 and 6

We keep IP addresses for a short time, for abuse protection.
The OWG can answer.

Action item: Kathleen Lu to contact OWG regarding Matomo tracking (Q5: is there a delay after which old IP addresses are anonymised and Q6: For how long is Matomo tracking information retained by OSMF). LWG to answer questions one to four, providing the reasoning.

Use of OSM trademark on OSM.tips websites

Background

Dear OSMF,

We are currently creating the non-commercial site "OSM.Tips". It should contain links to good "OSM related content" to make searching easier for mappers. To get started, we are concentrating on the German-speaking area. There is no intention to make a profit.

We currently also own the other domains "osm.tips, osmtips.de, osmtips.eu, osmtips.org, osmtips.com" for the site.

Due to the naming rights and the OpenStreetMap Trademark Policy, we would like to ask you to grant us permission to use the name OSM.tips and its associated domains.

-- LWG note ---
Forward to the board: Okay, but we need to agreement to get the domains if project changes to no longer be OSM.

We try to discourage use of OSM marks in domains, as – if the project of the domain dies - they can fall to non-OSM parties.
The content of these domains will be about OSM, so it is possible to have a trademark agreement with them, where the domains will be handed to us in such cases.

Action item: Kathleen Lu to forward this request for permission to use the OSM trademarks on the domains: osm.tips, osmtips.de, osmtips.eu, osmtips.org, osmtips.com to the board.

https://opengeohub.org/about-openlandmap/

Background

Dear OSMF,

We are currently creating the non-commercial site "OSM.Tips". It should contain links to good "OSM related content" to make searching easier for mappers. To get started, we are concentrating on the German-speaking area. There is no intention to make a profit.

We currently also own the other domains "osm.tips, osmtips.de, osmtips.eu, osmtips.org, osmtips.com" for the site.

Due to the naming rights and the OpenStreetMap Trademark Policy, we would like to ask you to grant us permission to use the name OSM.tips and its associated domains.

-- Forward to the board: Okay, but we need to agreement to get the domains if project changes to no longer be OSM.

Issues

They claim to have a trademark on the OpenLandMap name: “OpenGeoHub and OpenLandMap are registered trademarks of the OpenGeoHub Foundation"
They use OSM and are not attributing.
They are using our tiles.

On claim of trademarked name

Maybe the phrasing is wrong and they only have trademarked OpenGeoHub.
The sentence about the tradermarked name seems to have been added around 2019/2021.

On attribution to OSM

Attribution is displayed: in the infobox, on hover and in the text of the home page.
The crediting instructions direct users to "credit each layer based on the instructions available in the metadata or on the landing page. If no other option is available you can credit these data by using “© OpenLandMap.org contributors” and/or by using https://openlandmap.org
- They don’t know which layers people will use.
As they are using our tiles and resources, they need to add “OpenStreetMap” on the base map, or use their own tile server.

Other points mentioned during discussion

Most of the links are broken.
Data does not seem to get mixed.
OSM.org is using ODbL data which we have imported and not attributing the sources.
They obviously like OSM.

Suggestions

love letter process: send them a friendly email asking them to add attribution.
ask them to change the name of the project.

On different types of attribution

Attribution due to use of OSMF tiles
Attribution due to use of OSM data.
- We probably can’t complain to them about data attribution without being hypocritical.
- Both types are the same attribution.
  - They have different principle.

Action item: Guillaume Rischard to send an attribution love letter to OpenGeoHub, regarding OpenLandMap.

Any other business

Mapbox-using companies and OSM attribution

Report by Tom Lee on the three companies who are using Mapbox and had not fixed OSM attribution:

GIS site: fixed it.
Ukrainian site: they have two weeks to fix it.
New York City scooter site: have not responded yet. Since they are a paying customer, they will likely need to renew their account and we’ll be probably able to contact someone there.

German federal cartography agency

Issue
The German federal cartography agency https://www.bkg.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html repackages OSM data, while burying OSM attribution in a PDF file on their site. This data sets gets used by others, including Google Maps.

Action items

Guillaume Rischard to talk with Tom Hummel, before the latter talks to the German lawyer.
Guillaume Rischard to provide a summary regarding the German federal cartography agency issue at the next meeting.

GDPR ticket for the www.osm.org website

The GDPR-related ticket for the www.osm.orgwebsite has been getting traction.
There is a proposal by EWG, which has not been forwarded to LWG for review.
GDPR has probably gotten more strict over time.
The GDPR 24-page whitepaper https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/8/88/GDPR_Position_Paper.pdf was by Roland, not by LWG – Kathleen had commented.
Kathleen had a conversation with the German author of the GDPR whitepaper and with Simon Poole (past LWG chairperson), about GDPR, during SotM Milanor Heidelberg. At that time, there wasn't any information on the potential technical difficulties.
The LWG is fine with prioritisation of items by the EWG.
The LWG can review the requirements and prioritise items, if needed.

New action items

Kathleen Lu to contact Lawdit and enquire about the cost estimate for opposing the trademark registration by UMBRAOSM. [Trademark notice: UMBRAOSM]
Kathleen Lu to reply to Kirill Fedotov that the new MapBuilder designs for OSM account sign-ups look good. [Microsoft MapBuilder]
Tom Hummel to reply to the last email about rescheduling the meeting regarding the Austrian governmental datasets , cc Dermot and try to schedule a new date. [Ticket#2023110610000184 related - Meeting with Brigitte Lutz/Austrian gov and OSMF Austria Local Chapter]
Kathleen Lu to reply to the reporter that, per horizontal layers, what was done with the Organic Maps feature related to https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/6523/commits/51b3fc992e66e49b4c9a77e3d3fb05d99027baf5 is fine for data about hotel booking, and enquire about further concerns. [Ticket#2023112510000086]
Kathleen to perform a Google report and ask them to take the "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS" app down. [App "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS" - Email to legal@osmfoundation]
Kathleen Lu to contact OWG regarding Matomo tracking (Q5: is there a delay after which old IP addresses are anonymised and Q6: For how long is Matomo tracking information retained by OSMF). LWG to answer questions one to four, providing the reasoning. [Matomo tracking on www.osm.org Ticket#2023122410000102]

Next Meetings

Monday 12 February 2024, 1800 UTC
Monday 04 March 2024, 1800 UTC
Monday 08 April 2024 (summer hours - 1700)
Monday 13 May 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 10 June 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 08 July 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 12 August 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 09 September 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 07 October 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 18 November 2024 (back to winter hours - 1800)
Monday 09 December 2024, 1800 UTC

Meeting adjourned 1 hour and 37 minutes after start.

Navigation menu

Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-01-08

Contents

Participants

Absent

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

Previous action items

Reportage and action item updates

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Trademarks – any updates?

UMBRAOSM

Geolytica

Microsoft MapBuilder

Meeting with Brigitte Lutz/Austrian gov and OSMF Austria Local Chapter - Ticket#2023110610000184 related

Queries to legal-questions

Organic Maps app feature - Ticket#2023112510000086

App "OSM - Open Source Maps & GPS" - Email to legal@osmfoundation

Matomo tracking on www.osm.org Ticket#2023122410000102

Use of OSM trademark on OSM.tips websites

https://opengeohub.org/about-openlandmap/

Any other business

Mapbox-using companies and OSM attribution

German federal cartography agency

GDPR ticket for the www.osm.org website

New action items

Next Meetings