Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2025-07-14
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
14 July 2025, 17:00 UTC
Minutes of the "OSMF move to the EU" were redacted from the minutes, as decided by the LWG during their August 2025 meeting.
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
- Tom Hummel
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board member)
Absent
- Simon Hughes
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2025-06-16 Approved - Minutes for "EU move" and a DWG topic to be redacted.
Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi.
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?
OSMF move to the EU
Discussion for ~ 30 minutes. The LWG decided to redact the minutes.
Heat Map issue
| Background |
|---|
| Proposed response from Kathleen:
Dear all, Best, |
Action item: Tom Hummel to add edits.
Large copyright infringement (Dopper - water taps) Ticket#2025040310000645
| Email shared by the LWG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I am a long-time french OSM contributor, and I've been using Google Maps lately (I know, it's bad) for a hiking trip. I found out that a brand named "Dopper" (https://www.dopper.com/) has imported 130.000+ water tap POI from OpenStreetMap on Google Maps in Europe, in order to promote their water bottles.
Although I can't confirm that the 130 000 POIs have been "stolen" from OSM, 100% of those that I have checked have the exact same coordinates (even when the water tap doesn't exist anymore) on Google Maps and OSM. Here are a few examples:
Of course, they also use an OSM-based map on their website without attribution (https://www.dopper.com/products/tap-map), which reference all the water taps (same coordinates than OSM). Even if I can't prove that Dopper has been adding all of these water taps to the map, every Google Maps POI has a link to their website, and they have communicated on this marketing campaign on internet : https://localyse.eu/cases/localyse-helps-dopper-to-make-water-taps-visible-in-google-maps/ / https://weekend.levif.be/partenaires/dopper-au-top-5-faits-surprenants-sur-votre-gourde-durable-preferee/ / https://lehub.laposte.fr/la-marque-de-gourdes-dopper-ajoute-sur-google-maps-les-points-deau-potable. Were you aware of this Thank you in advance for your help, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=65356 |
Update from Dermot: email was sent, automatic reply insisted on the filling of a general purpose form, no response to the form (except 2 “how did we do?” emails).
Suggestions
- Consider letting Google handle the issue. We can attempt to contact the product counsel at Google Maps, sharing our knowledge and concerns with them.
- If contacting Google Maps is unsuccessful, consider using the DMCA process.
Action item: Dermot to draft a message with a summary of what we think we know with intended recipient a person at GoogleMaps. An LWG member to send the message via multiple channels.
Additional issue: Missing OSM attribution on Dopper’s map.
Data Working Group - OSMtoday, via legal@
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
|
DWG received a ticket with claims that the website OSMToday.com is putting out false information on our Ukraine borders. It does not sound like a DWG issue. Can you deal with it? I will suggest to the OP that they try a different site to download OSM data. Best regards -- OpenStreetMap Foundation Data Working Group - data@osmfoundation.org -- [Ticket#2025051010000086] Forwarded message Good day! I want to bring to your attention the fact of abuse of the OSM copyright to facilitate Russian propaganda. The website makes false claims to its users and creates false impressions: "Extracts data of Ukraine from OpenStreetMaps", " Fresh geo data from the Openstreetmap project in ESRI Shape format" Please stop this blatant abuse of your intellectual property and good name. $ whois 78.31.71.149 refer: whois.ripe.net inetnum: 78.0.0.0 - 78.255.255.255 whois: whois.ripe.net changed: 2006-08
inetnum: 78.31.64.0 - 78.31.71.255 organisation: ORG-MMIA3-RIPE role: WIIT AG NOC % Information related to '78.31.64.0/21AS24961' route: 78.31.64.0/21 % This query was served by the RIPE Database Query Service version 1.117 (DEXTER) June 6 update: We'd also like to suggest a look at how you're conveying the ODbL's requirements to your customers. Your customers would be well-served by making it clearer that the PBFs you offer for download are subject to the ODbL. Finally, your use of attribution on the site is appreciated, but please note that according to the Attribution Guideline the preferred link for attribution text is to https://openstreetmap.org/copyright. Thanks again, and please do let me know if you have any questions. July 3 update: We have finished making edits to the site https://geo2day.com/. Please take a look too. |
They responded.
Tom Lee was thanked by LWG members.
Previously: Is "Korea Open Government License Type 1" safe to be imported into OSM?, via legal@
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
|
I noticed https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156936039 that mass imported POI from dataset licensed under "Korea Open Government License Type 1" which seems similar to CC-BY-SA Is it also requiring waiver? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Open_Government_License LWG notes: Reply on June 18: As best we can tell of the translation listed at https://web.archive.org/web/20230127203147/https://www.mcst.go.kr/kor/s_open/kogl/koglType.jsp?pTab=05 per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Open_Government_License, there is potential for "Korea Open Government License Type 1" (which is more like CC-BY, vs the "Type 3" which looks more like CC-BY-SA) to be compatible for OSM. However, we would need a better translation and some explanation of how this is applied to specific datasets to be able to come to a firm conclusion Follow up from Korean mapper: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=68905 Dear DWG team, I hope this message finds you well. My nickname is adreamy, and I currently serve as a moderator for the Korea (Peninsula) category of the official OSM forums. It has come to my attention that datasets released under the Korea Open Government License (KOGL)—the standard open data license used by the South Korean government—have been repeatedly imported into OSM. While such imports have occurred for some time, there has also been ongoing debate regarding the compatibility of KOGL with the OSM license. Recently, I conducted an in-depth investigation into this issue and summarized my findings on the OSM Wiki under the article titled "Korea Open Government License". Despite this, some contributors continue to assert that KOGL Type 1 is fully compatible with OSM and that its use poses no legal issues. However, I believe this is not a matter that individual contributors should decide on their own without a thorough legal review. Where there is both a potential for legal risk and disagreement over that risk, I believe it is more prudent to assume that a dispute could arise. As I understand it, the OSM Foundation generally errs on the side of caution in legal matters, and I think this case should be no exception.
With that in mind, I wanted to share this information proactively, so that if any issues arise in the future involving KOGL-licensed data in South Korea, the DWG is already aware and prepared to respond appropriately. I hope this can be reviewed and discussed within DWG, as it may help prevent or manage future disputes. Please feel free to reply to this email with any questions or comments. I will do my best to answer them accurately based on what I’ve learned. Thank you for your time and attention. Best regards, |
We received a follow-up on the same topic from a Korean mapper, who is more embedded with the Korean community. They provided more details and a link to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Korea_Open_Government_License which rescribes their knowledge of the situation.
Only option one could work.
Points for consideration
- Attribution: their expectations for attribution are unclear. It might need to be more detailed and more specific at the point of consumption of the data.
- Language:
- None of the LWG members speak/read Korean (same issue for licenses in Japan).
- There is limited availability of official translations of Korean licences into English.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- In some parts of the Korean geospatial bureaucracy, there is no expectation for downstream attribution pass-through.
- A major decision regarding Google's appeal on Korean geospatial data custody is expected in early August.
Suggestions
- Ask for assessment of the translation.
- Ask for dataset examples.
- Approve datasets on a case-by-case basis.
- Wait a few weeks before responding to see the decision on Google's appeal.
Action item: Kathleen to write back that some datasets might be compatible, but the LWG is reviewing an old translation, which does not seem professional and might not be accurate. We will ask them for i) an assessment of the translation and ii) examples of datasets. The LWG might be able to approve datasets on a case-by-case basis.
Done - July 15.
Potentially importing DBSN - An ODbL licensed database
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
| https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=68414
Dear Licensing Working Group, Is an ODbL licensed dataset compatible for import in OSM or does it require a waiver to be compatible with contributor terms as well? To give some background, my doubt comes from the work on the DBSN database, licensed under ODbL but not yet used for any imports due to this doubt. The OSMF Licence Compatibility page says the following: Licences that require users to only use the data on identical terms as the original licence are in general incompatible with use in OpenStreetMap as the OSM contributor terms allow us to change to a different, but still open, licence in the future which may differ from the ODbL and for example not have a share alike clause. Further the ODbL concept of a Produced Work will in general be incompatible with any such terms.
The wiki page Open Database License/Contributor Terms/Open Issues, dated 2010, says: Under section 3, the CTs offer the potential to relicense data in future under another "free and open license", so even if OSM adopted another share a like license in future, it may not be compatible with ODBL just as CC-by-SA isn't compatible with ODBL. Under section 1, Person A downloads some or all of the OSM data, they make changes to that data and offer it on their own website as required by the ODBL. Person B comes along and wants to import that data into OSM, but they can't incorporate that information back into OSM because they do not have the right to grant OSM the ability to relicense that data in future This 2022 OSMF board meeting approved "requiring documentation of compatibility or incompatibility with the Contributor Terms' relicensing clause as part of the import process" but I haven't found any follow-up on this, both [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Step_2:_License_approval Import guidelines] and Import/ODbL Compatibility pages cite only licence checks and don't cite possible CT incompatibility. In conclusion, I'm asking my original question to have a final clarification of these doubts. Kind regards, Daniele Santini -- Daniele Santini |
DBSN is an Italian database released under ODbL https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Italy/DBSN#License.
- It seems that the database should be importable.
- Potential future OSM licence changes might make it incompatible with ODbL data sources.
- We have ODbL data imported (e.g French train stations in the import catalogue https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue).
Suggestion
- Import the data, making clear the terms, so in case of a potential licence change with ODbL incompatibility we can do something about it.
Other point mentioned during discussion
- The issue is not whether ODbL is compatible with itself, but with its potential successor.
Action item: Dermot to write back to them that i) the LWG takes the view that anything under ODbL is importable to OSM and future licence changes are considered unlikely and ii) that the data can be imported, making sure that the licence is indicated when data is brought in.
GeoNB and New Brunswick Open Government License
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=69506
I have been looking into the licensing situation for "GeoNB" which is the government data catalogue for the province of New Brunswick, and found that while this data has been used informally in the past, it has not been officially reviewed by the LWG nor is it listed on the Canada wiki page. I would like to hopefully get this license reviewed and posted to the wiki so we can have access to this excellent resource. Here are my findings:
Here is the link to the New Brunswick OGL: www.snb.ca/e/2000/data-E.html And here is the link to the GeoNB Data Catalogue: www.snb.ca/geonb1/e/DC/catalogue-E.asp I will hold off on adding it to the Wiki page(s) until I receive some confirmation that this has been approved. I appreciate your help with this matter. |
They have provided information about the licence and the differences, according to the LWG instructions.
Assessment: Everything looks good.
Action item: Kathleen to write back that the New Brunswick Open Government License is approved and update the Canada page.
Done - July 15.
Any other business
openstreetmap.ng
| We should send something more firm to https://openstreetmap.ng
Issues with www.openstreetmap.ng
Other issues
|
| Proposed by Guillaume Rischard |
Issues with the openstreetmap.ng website
- It can be confusing as it looks official:
- Styling very similar to osm.org.
- It was previously thanking Fastly.
- It has OSM contributors in the corner.
- Security risk, as OSM contributors may try to sign-in to the openstreetmap.ng test site with their openstreetmap.org credentials.
Counterpoints
- Mentions that it is an independent project.
- The GitHub repository mentions that it is not affiliated with OSMF.
Suggestions
- Need a prominent banner on https://www.openstreetmap.ng/ about not affiliated with OSMF.
- Ask to make it clear on all public communications that i) the project is not affiliated with OSMF, ii) the donations do not go to OSMF, iii) the project is not endorsed by OSMF.
- Need to remove sign in and sign up buttons.
- Change the styling of the website to reduce confusion and make it clear it is not related to OSMF.
Attribution
- Attribution is expanded when you open the page and then collapses under an (i).
Other points mentioned during discussion
- We had previously asked Kamil to add a statement on the GitHub repository, as there was no website at the time.
- Domain use as long as it points to the GitHub page
On the domain The project uses a Nigerian domain.
Action item:
Kathleen to email NorthCrab.
- Need to remove sign in and sign up buttons, as it is a security risks.
- Need a prominent banner on https://www.openstreetmap.ng/ about not affiliated with OSMF.
- Remove OSM logo and name, links to terms, about, help pages.
- Need “🛈 This initiative is not affiliated with the OpenStreetMap Foundation.” on the https://www.openstreetmap.ng/test-site page.
- Ensure that all future communications with public clearly disclose not affiliated with OSMF.
- Mention that the styling, in combination with the domain, is confusing.
Scheduling 2025 meetings
The LWG set the following meetings for 2025:
Aug 11, at 17:00 UTC
Sep 08, at 17:00 UTC
Oct 06, at 17:00 UTC
Nov 10, at 18:00 UTC (same as normal hours for everyone)
Dec 08, at 18:00 UTC
Meeting adjourned 1 hour and 17 minutes after start.