Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-07-08

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

Participants

Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
Dermot McNally
Simon Hughes
Tom Lee

Absent

Tom Hummel
Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

2024-06-10 Approved

Previous action items

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?

OSM US trademark renewal

Kathleen submitted samples from the OSM US merchandise website to our attorneys for the renewal of the US registration.

Trademark watch notices

We will get the invoice for the watch notices soon.

Reportage

Ticket#2024050910000143 - Open Government License 2.0, Niagara

Emails to LWG

Hello, Could you please confirm that the Open Government License 2.0 (Niagara Region) <

https://niagaraopendata.ca/pages/open-government-license-2-0-niagara-region[..] > is compatible with use for OSM? It is the same as OGL Canada 2.0, but it defines Personal Information using provincial law instead of federal Thank you, William Davis

Looked fine. Kathleen added it to the list.

OSMF move to the EU

Not discussed.

Application for new membership – Alexander Zatko

Email to LWG

I would be interested to participate on discussions concerning Licence/Attribution issues at the least, possibly other topics the group engages in.

I am an OSM mapper, and a member of the Slovakia local OSM chapter as well. Besides mapping, I run the nabezky.sk crowdsourced portal for x-country skiers and have also developed rovas.app whose aim is to (among other things) improve funding for vounteer projects. Occasionally I contribute to FOSS projects, primarily Drupal.

I am motivated to join LWG, because I think the current state of OSM attribution license requirement compliance is suboptimal, as are the approaches I have seen so far, proposed to remedy the problem. I have a new proposal that I would like to discuss with the group.

Not discussed.

Query from Microsoft - referral from OWG

Email to LWG

Referral from OWG:

Hi LWG,

My name is Branko and I am contacting you from Microsoft. Recently, we asked OWG (in CC)to share access to Matomo[1] analytics with our team (or set of individuals withinMicrosoft), enabling us to collaboratively enhance the OSM website (original mail inattachment with explanation). On OWG meeting yesterday[2], it was determined that formatters like this, we should reach out to you for the necessary guidelines andrequirements for this access. Specifically, we seek information on any NDA, as well asprotocols for accessing, storing, and handling the data, if any. Our goal is to fullycomply with the OSM privacy policy and work together on Matomo for the mutual benefit of OSM.

Thanks in advance,

Branko

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Matomo
[2] https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Operations/Minutes/2024-06-27#Matomo_-_Microsoft_access_request

This was discussed around 56’ after start. Simon had to disconnect.

Issue: Whether as a project we could legally give Microsoft access to Matomo under a non-disclosure agreement, in accordance with the privacy policy.

This is about web analytics for the sign-up process, which is a multi-step process that people drop off.
There was a concern that an NDA would be insufficient.

On data

Matomo does not display the full IP address, discarding the last two bytes, so it doesn't seem like we're giving them anything personal.
If a user is logged in, the user is anonymized in Matoma, showing a hash version.
Geolocation is performed before discarding the last two bytes of IPv4 addresses.

Action item

Kathleen to reply that the LWG does not see any personal data in Matomo, it looks like all aggregate or anonymized data and whether the OWG disagrees.

July 11 update: email sent

Query from OSMF: GDPR and affected services

Email to LWG

The EWG have updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GDPR/Affected_Services and we would like to ask for bids to implement it. Are you happy for us to proceed?

Not discussed.

Law enforcement request

LWG requested for minutes to not be published.

Query from OWG – Questions by Facebook for data use checkup

Email to LWG

Every year we get asked to do a "Data Use Checkup" by Facebook in order to allow us to keep the app that enables Facebook login on the main site.In the past it has just been checking some boxes to confirm that we've read the terms and conditions etc but this year they've added a bunch of questions that I'm going to need your help with.I've attached a screenshot of the questions, along with the popup for each data processor and the various dropdown menus of options.I need to complete this by the end of July to retain access.'

I'm not sure that anybody other than us gets to see data that we get from Meta which is what they ask about.The only data we get from Meta is the meta account ID which never goes anywhere beyond us, and possibly a name and email which will be used as default values for the username and email during a signup.We never send email anywhere so the only question would be around the user's display name if that originally came from Meta.I don't think we ever send that anywhere though, other than by including it in public data dumps like planet.

[Note by Kathleen] Would the info from Facebook go through our CDN or anything like that? Not sure if the username and email as default values would count if they are changeable by the user before the account is fully created? We’ll also need to answer the law enforcement question as well.

We haven't answered to the Operations Working Group (OWG).
The LWG had concluded that the questions are technical and not legal, so OWG is better placed to answer them.
OWG seems to have tried answering them, so we should tell them if their answers are fine or not. They left blank the ones they don't know the answer.

> Do you have a data controller located in the EEA (European Economic Area) or the UK that will be responsible for all data Meta shares with you?
Yes. OSMF.

> Have you provided personal data of users to public authorities and national security requests in the past twelve months?
No.

> Which of the following policies or process do you have in place regarding a request from public authority for personal data? Check all that apply.
> Required review of the legality of these requests.
> Provisions for challenging these requests if they're considered unlawful.
> Data minimization policy - the ability to disclose the minimum information necessary.
> Documentation of these requests including your responses to the requests and the legal reasoning and actors involved.
> None of the above.
> We are prohibited by law or company policy from answering this question.

We have

Required review
Data minimisation
Documentation

> For which category of services was this data processor process the personal data of users received from Meta? Select all that apply.

We have no data processors that receive Meta information, because we only get their info for logging in.
There was a question about the Content Delivery Network (CDN).

Other point mentioned: We don't seem to have provisions for challenging requests.

July 8 update: Kathleen gave responses to OWG to fill in.

Queries from Local Chapter: OpenStreetMap France

Background

Dear all,

I'm a current board member of French local chapter, OSM France.

Last year, several contributors had intended to translate into French the community guidelines of ODbL license that the Foundation maintains on its website.

Many people will get better knowledge about licenses if those guidelines are given in their mother tongue. Particularly in France, many spent years in arguments about ODbL without exactly knowing what it is all about. Had the Foundation ever being asked for a local translation of those guidelines?

You can read the current revision here: https://mypads.framapad.org/p/licence-guidelines-g6g617bh

As our translation is complete, we are now looking forward to know if it's accurate and how we could improve it before any publication.

When properly reviewed, what is the best option to serve it online? Should we edit the OSM Foundation wiki with it or should the local chapter serve it on its own?

We are open to discuss about our work.You can find a thread (in French) where we organize ourselves about it: https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/traduction-des-licence-guidelines-et-clarification-de-lodbl-avec-lecosysteme-francais/15506

Best regards
François Lacombe
OpenStreetMap France

The text that Simon Hughes offered to translate didn't match with the revised legal FAQs that we drafted and posted.

There was a bit of confusion on the text that the French Local Chapter translated.

The French Local Chapter translated the community guidelines. They provided a link to a Framapad (online pad), and on the top it says that it has a translation of the community guidelines and links to the guidelines.
Guillaume sent three exports of the french translation documents.
The French Local Chapter put all of the guidelines in one document and there is a URL at the top of each section, that says which was the original page. They probably did that for proofreading purposes. When we put it on their official website, the formatting would obviously get fixed up.

Suggestion: Consider translating the FAQ.

Simon Hughes offered to put a TomTom person to translate the FAQ.

Action item

Kathleen to reply that we're still reading through, but assuming it looks ok, we can host the french translation on the OSMF website.

GTFS

The previous meeting focused on the Swiss GTFS case, as it was simpler and Simon Poole was present, but there was a second case which was briefly talked about.

Suggestions

Contact the people making these inquiries to understand what the actual problem is
Consider drafting a sample dual licensing dedication for GTFS users, saying that the geographic data elements inside of these files are dual licensed under the Open Database License (ODbL) and something less restrictive.

Other point mentioned: Agencies publishing data as GTFS want the data to be widely used or it could be a public obligation.

Concern: There is substantial risk, based on the nature of the GTFS format, what data they will be tempted to include. Our data could end up shared more liberally than people want to.

On routing: If it's a produced work, all they need is attribution. If they're already using OSM as a base map, they already have attribution. When they distribute, they can include the attribution with the API.

Consensus seemed to be: The LWG is ok with the dynamically generated routes to be considered a produced work.

On second GTFS use case

In more recent versions of GTFS you have not only points representing bus stops, but the actual road network connecting them.

Concern: Inclusion of OSM data in GTFS for bus route geometries.

Issue: The strings attached to any downstream database from them.

We have the share-alike.

On the second use case

Use of GTFS by Google Maps, Apple Maps, city map or transit would mean thay a substantial amount of the OSM dataset would be used (e.g. for per city). It would not be an ephemeral routing query.
The person who emailed us seems to be focused on station geometry. They could be interested in local points, and local routing. While that's a tiny percentage of what's in OSM, it's everything that OSM has for that use case in a particular locality.
- It is likely to be more than 100 points.
It seems very unlikely that they will be able to incorporate ODbL licensed data into their releases and the existing user agreements they've got.

Other points mentioned

From a substantive standpoint, it is unsuitable for reverse engineering a substantial part of the OSM database.
While routing instructions are considered a produced work, the actual geometries would be considered a derivative database.

Action item

Kathleen to reply to sender, mentioning the routing and that geometries are likely to be derivative databases.

Switzerland – Licensing GTFS shapes.txt files

Background

We (SOSM) have been asked by the Federal Swiss Railways and the federaltransportation department on how they should license a GTFS shapes.txtFile which has geometries that have been generate from OSM data. Seehttps://gtfs.org/schedule/reference/#shapestxt for the definition of thecontents.As this is likely a question of general interest, the LWG might want toweigh in on the matter. As a tendency I would consider it a producedwork, within the the restraints ofhttps://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline,but there are likely other opinions.If you want to issue a ruling of sorts could you indicate this, if notwe'll simply point them to the guideline.

Kathleen’s initial thoughts:
I do wonder if perhaps this guidance from the Attribution Guidelines is relevant:
A user extracts a portion of the OSM database, such as building footprints. They fill in the building polygons to create a training set for use with satellite imagery for training. A model is trained to predict what portions of imagery are buildings. The model is then used on fresh imagery to make predictions as to where buildings might exist. Training datasets that are substantial extractions from OpenStreetMap data are considered Derivative Databases and need to be made available on ODbL terms if publicly used. Models that have been trained with such training sets must be attributed in documentation where a person using the model can expect such information, such as a README for the model’s codebase, or on a webpage where the model can be downloaded. https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Machine_learning_models

Follow up from Simon:

Hi all
during the discussion yesterday I mentioned that I would get back to the SBB and check exactly how they plan to distribute the data in question, and it does seem that they do intend to include all of their routes in the file. I was simply confused because they had always been discussing output from OpenJourneyPlanner while we were discussing f2f but their concrete question was in a slightly different context, sorry for the confusion. As a consequence I have, communicated that they should licence the data on ODBL terms, which as I mentioned yesterday, likely isn't really an issue.

Simon

Kathleen to write to https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=52392

Answered on July 11.

Queries from Local Chapter: Email from Jochen/Falk/FOSSGIS

Background

Hi Kathleen,

I have a half-time position doing paid work for the local chapter in Germany now, handling government contacts, doing some community organizing etc. As part of that I am also trying to coordinate some of the legal stuff together with Falk Zscheile. Falk is a member of our board and lawyer specializing in license and privacy issues. Unfortunately his English isn't that great so I am trying to help out where I can.

We have several issues currently on the table that we want to discuss with you and/or the legal working group. I am coming to you to discuss what the best approach for this is.

1. The waiver for data licensed under CC-BY contains two clauses, one for the attribution which is reasonably easy to understand for everybody. The other about Section 2(a)(5)(B) is much harder to understand and to explain to people who are considering signing the waiver. Now Falk has looked at this second clause and thinks it is not necessary (the legal details I don't understand currently myself), which would make things easier. But of course we don't want to say anything different from what the OSMF is saying, so we need to figure out whether "you lawyers" can come to a common view here or whether this is maybe related to different legal view in Germany vs. the US or so. Due to the federal structure of our government we have to talk to hundreds of agencies and everything that makes this simpler would be a major improvement.

2. Falk says the waiver for aerial imagary are not necessary according to his understanding of copyright law etc. And getting them (possibly again and again if data sets, responsible agencies, URLs etc. change) is a pain. How important is it to have these, especially if images are already released under CC-BY or similar licenses?

3. We have a problem with the waiver in regards to the attribution. We "offer" attribution on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors two clicks away from the map, but there are some attributions on https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright only one click away from the map. I thought this was just some historic cases, but this page still gets new attributions. This, understandably, makes some people feel like they come in second place and we have at least one case of a German state apparently refusing to sign the waiver because of that. (It might be that they don't want to anyway and this gives them a plausible reason, but it is still a problem.) We need to find a better solution for this.

I am sorry if these questions have been hashed to death already in the LWG, I know they are not new. But documentation on all of these things is minimal at best and I am trying to implement a coherent strategy for us here in Germany.

Regards,
Jochen
…
Hi Jochen!

Some quick answers, but you and Falk are both welcome to join the next LWG meeting (May 13) for fuller discussion.

1. This is something we've gone around and around multiple times, but it is the official position of Creative Commons that the Section 2(a)(5)(B) waiver is needed. We asked them at the time CC-BY 4.0 was released, and raised it again with them this year. This is simply due to the history of how CC-BY 4.0 was written.
Now, a wrinkle in this is that, even though Creative Commons put out the template, the license in each case is put by the individual government agency, and the language is vague enough that the agency could have a completely different interpretation as to whether Section 2(a)(5)(B) raises a point of incompatibility or not, and it is the agency's position that should control, over Creative Commons', so you could have an agency that says "this waiver is unnecessary because Section 2(a)(5)(B) does not prohibit distribution of Derivative Works with DRM". That is perhaps not helpful to you when you are messaging hundreds of agencies. It is also possible for German law to tip the scales here in some way I am unaware.

2. Aerial imagery itself is generally viewed as copyrightable in the US. I can't speak authoritatively on other countries. I don't think we use the template waivers very often, but it's usually in the context of API usage where OSM's usage would be noticeable to the imagery provider, and the provider's legal team wants to paper up the OSM usecase. I haven't heard of any issues regarding permission, so I'm not sure what roadblocks people are running into.

3. We don't have a great solution to this. Right now, there's somewhat of a bar of "national" source to be added to the https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright page, with LWG approval. Of course, some will still be unhappy, but we haven't any better ideas.

We should be trying to form opinions of the things that the regulators should consider, e.g. the obligation for keeping things correct and up to date.
We could to push for something, but we have to write it.

Kathleen asked Dermot if he can draft something.

Suggestions

talk about this offline.
the LWG could make a recommendation to the board.

Decision: talk offline.

Action item

Dermot to read the email again and see if he can draft something.

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2024051410000571 Use of OSM logo on 3D printed products

Background

I'm Thomas Borie, a sole entrepreneur in France who is preparing to bring my first 3D printed products to the market.

One of those is a lapel pin for OSM surveyors to wear while going in the wild. At the moment I only have a french version of the lapel pin which says "Contributeur" (Contributor) in red.The idea behind this product is to help surveyors to talk to other people about OSM when they are mapping the area. I've already been questioned about what I was doing around houses and struggled to explain myself, the lapel pin could help introverts (like me) to build confidence to talk about OSM and the usefulness of our work for the community.

This product will be sold for-profit, but I plan to donate 0.50€ per lapel pin sold to the OSMF.I am using a slightly modified (colours and "Contributeur" text addition) of the Logo mono.svg. I chose this logo due to the limitations of 3D printing and because "Open Street Map" is written inside the logo itself.I'm using the closest colours I could find to the full size logo (black, light green, white with a tint of green and red for the added text).Please find attached some pictures of the current prototype with the modified logo.

I have read the Trademark policy and I'm fairly confident I'm going to need a license.If this is the case, I would like to know if, with a for-profit product, but donating for each unit sold, there are licensing fees involved ?I plan to create other lapel pins with different texts, "Surveyor" or "Contributor" being first for the English-speaking contributors. I'm fairly certain you will want to be informed of any changes in the design, but do I need to obtain a full new license if the only modification is the added text ?

On how the LWG feels about the use of the trademark

Looks cute.
The motivation of the sender seems pure and he wants to do the right thing.
It feels like the kind of thing that we like to grant permission for.

On deviation from the OSM logo

The image they sent diverges from the OSM logo, due to technical constraints.
We can approve deviations.

Other points mentioned

There was a previous request by someone else who said that they would donate all profits. The LWG sent the request to the CWG.
It's not in the LWG's role to have an opinion whether such requests are good for the project or not.

Suggestions

Send such requests to the CWG and, if they are unsure, they can ask the LWG.
Grant this licence, if CWG approves.

Action item

Kathleen to forward the email to CWG with a note that we can accommodate a license for this use case, if they like it.

July 11: forwarded

Ticket#2024062110000127 Impressum

Background

Hello there,

I am a mapper located in germany. I have multiple questions.1. Where is your imprint (Impressum in german)? I cannot find it and without it, nobody inGermany can use your service.2. Why is use of OSM illegal for minors under 13, and really hard for people under 16?

Greetings,
Jonathan Krüger

Websites in Germany, or targetting websites in Germany, are legally required by German law to have an "Impressun", making a declaration of who they are (name) and where they are (address).

OSM Foundation website has one: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/About/de#Impressum

www.osm.org is not hosted in Germany
Link would have to be under www.osm.org, but not top-level.

Suggestion: Add one to www.osm.org or link from www.osm.org to the OSMF one.

Decision: Discuss this with Tom Hummel.

July 11 update:
per chat, Tom H will reply; since Brexit, OSMF is not affected, because Directive 2000/31/EC no longer applies to the UK; same goes for ECJ decisions. However, once within the EU, a link is not enough, see BGH I ZR 90/20 »Influencer II« Under the Directive, OSMF itself is likely required to have a legal notice, because it could be regarded as a “commercial” service. The ECJ reads the adjacent legal requirement “normally provided for remuneration” as commercial to the extent that it is an economic activity at all, and “does not require the service to be paid for by those for whom it is performed”. (see par. 40 f, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1995/46/oj ) This interpretation is in line with art. 56 f AEUV, where the definition originates. (Kluth, in: Calliess/Ruffert, EUV/AEUV, 4. Aufl. 2011, Art. 57 Rn. 14)

To trademarks@ - PROTEUS project

Background

Hello, everyone on the OpenStreetMap Foundation!

My name is Sergey Churkin, I am the CEO of the PROTEUS project, we are development team for a mini-app for Telegram messenger. Our mini-app is preparing to develop for groups of travelers (and for solo travelers too), with the aim to help them organize their travel in the best possible way.

Our product will be distributed free of charge on 1st stage, we do not foresee any paid options.

Our product will be distributed with inclusion of partial paid options on 2nd stage, so we will provide for contractual contributions of such revenues to the benefit of the OpenStreetMap Foundation for the advancement of its progress.

Our mini-app is not an aggregator of third-party services (of which there are many), we make an original product with new features and new practical solutions to the issues faced by travelers.

As one of the elements of solving such problems, we assume the use of geo-coordinates (GPS) of the users from their mobile devices, additionally visualized on maps via your MAP.ME Overpass API.

That is why I am kindly requests to OSMF:

1\ Please, we ask you permission to use the OSMF logo on the main page of our mini-app with an active link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/about in accordance with «3.3.6. Use in software projects» regulation of TradeMark Policy while our mini-app will work on 1st (free of charge) stage.

2\ Please, we ask you permission for trademark license usage of OSMF logo on main page of our mini-app with active link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/about in accordance with «4.4 Use in Commercial merchandise» in regulation of TradeMark Policy when our mini-app will start to work on 2nd (with partial paid options) stage, with an indication on the main page of the app of the amount of donation to the OpenStreetMap Foundation, collected from the use of paid services of the app. I will be grateful for any information related to the subject of my letter.

Sincerely yours,
Sergey Churkin
PROTEUS CEO

They wanted permission to use the OSMF logo in their mini-app.
Email seemed well-intentioned.

Suggestion: they can use the logo, if they add a disclaimer “Uses data from OpenStreetMap Foundation. Not affiliated with or endorsed by OpenStreetMap.”

Consider whether the CWG could have a role in deciding in these cases.

It doesn't really require anything active by the Communication Working Group (CWG).

July 11 update: Sent

To trademarks@ - OpenFreeMap

Email to LWG

Dear OpenStreetMap Foundation,

I am writing to formally request a trademark use license for my open-source project, OpenFreeMap (https://openfreemap.org/). I have completed the Project Licence and Domain Grandfathering Application form as requested and have attached it to this email for your review.

OpenFreeMap is a non-profit initiative that provides free, unrestricted access to full-planet vector tiles derived from OpenStreetMap data. Our project aligns closely with OSM's mission of open data accessibility and community-driven development. We offer this service without any registration requirements or collection of personal data, ensuring maximum accessibility and privacy for users.

Key points about OpenFreeMap:

1. It provides free vector tile hosting for websites and applications.
2. There are no usage limits or API keys required.
3. The entire project, including production setup, is open-source and available on GitHub.
4. We use OpenStreetMap data and acknowledge this prominently.
5. The project is sustained through voluntary support plans, with all proceeds going towards server costs and development.

I believe OpenFreeMap complements OSM's recent initiatives in vector mapping, as mentioned in your blog post about "The Year of OpenStreetMap Vector Maps." Our project represents a volunteer-led development effort that could benefit the wider OSM community.

As part of our commitment to OSM's principles, we are willing to include a clause in the license agreement stating that the license remains valid only as long as the project continues to provide free vector tiles from OSM data.

I would be grateful for your consideration of this request and am happy to provide any additional information you may need. Thank you for your time and for your ongoing efforts in maintaining and expanding the OpenStreetMap project.

Kind regards,
Zsolt Ero
Founder, OpenFreeMap

Probably fine for them to be grandfathered in.

On attribution

Attribution: Copyright Open map tiles. Data from OpenStreetMap.
The attribution guidelines made it clear that both the copyright symbol and the word contributors were optional.

Ok, edit template as needed

July 11 – sent to Board for signature.

Next Meetings

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

Navigation menu

Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-07-08

Contents

Participants

Absent

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

Previous action items

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Trademarks – any updates?

OSM US trademark renewal

Trademark watch notices

Reportage

Ticket#2024050910000143 - Open Government License 2.0, Niagara

OSMF move to the EU

Application for new membership – Alexander Zatko

Query from Microsoft - referral from OWG

Action item

Query from OSMF: GDPR and affected services

Law enforcement request

Query from OWG – Questions by Facebook for data use checkup

Queries from Local Chapter: OpenStreetMap France

Action item

GTFS

On second GTFS use case

Action item

Switzerland – Licensing GTFS shapes.txt files

Queries from Local Chapter: Email from Jochen/Falk/FOSSGIS

Action item

Queries to legal-questions

Ticket#2024051410000571 Use of OSM logo on 3D printed products

Action item

Ticket#2024062110000127 Impressum

To trademarks@ - PROTEUS project

To trademarks@ - OpenFreeMap

Next Meetings