Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2025-08-11
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
11 August 2025, 17:00 UTC
Minutes of the "OSMF move to the EU" were redacted from the minutes, as decided by the LWG.
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
Absent
- Simon Hughes
- Tom Hummel
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board member)
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2025-07-14 Approved
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 ~ 50 minutes. The LWG drafted a response to the board during the meeting and 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, 15 June - Dermot sent letter to Dopper 11 August: Dermot’s draft letter for Google: We have made a good faith attempt to contact Dopper so that they can address these issues, but the available communications channels have not provided [Do we wish to add original examples of identical co-ordinates?] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=65356 |
Dermot drafted a letter for Google and shared it with the LWG.
Action item: Dermot to add examples with coordinates to his draft response.
Italy: Potentially importing DBSN - An ODbL licensed database
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
| 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 |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=68414 |
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. Done.
Canada: City of Kingston Open Data License 1.0
| I'd like to import some data into OSM. I'd like to add to the Contributors page.I'm adding Kingston, Ontario, Canada's "City of Kingston Open Data License 1.0" at https://www.cityofkingston.ca/media/wtpgpkb0/gis_license_opendata.pdf tohttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Canadian_Municipalities because the license is based on Ontario OGL 1.0 which is listed as approved athttps://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants (as "OGL 1.0 Ontario,compatible (LWG minutes 2024-03-04)", refhttps://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2024-03-04 ).I find the Kingston license to have no significant differences to the Ontario OGL 1.0.(Attached to this email are pre-processed plain-text versions of the licenses which I compared with the `diff` tool to conclude that they have no differences which are meaningful for the data I'd like to import. Of course you might ignore these and retrieve the licenses yourselves.)(I would like to import or otherwise use some public transit route and stop information,online at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ca26cad44f76466eafaa2d42041342a4 . I emphasize that at this time I would LIKE to do it, but NOT that I already know it's technically feasible and that I am capable, though I am aware of at least one tool that helps bring GTFS information into OSM.) |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=70444 |
Kathleen: Added on August 13 to https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants
Canada: City of Regina Open Government License
| I am emailing to ask the LWG whether they could determine if the Open Government License offered by the City of Regina (https://www.regina.ca/city-government/open-data/open-government-licence) is compatible with OpenStreetMap's licensing requirements. I believe that it is, as running a diff check against the Ottawa license shows very few differences (and arguably that Regina is laxer due to not restricting 3rd party or private data in the license). Please see my diff check here: https://www.diffchecker.com/Nr0oSlUu/
One item that gives me pause and made me want to reach out to you folks is that the Canada wiki page had a note next to the City of Regina under the open data section that said there was a next step of "Requires attribution. Would have to ask if attribution on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors page would fulfil the attribution requirement". But the same section pointed to an old URL for the open data site and had a 404 for the link to the license page. I have since updated both links, but I am not sure if that next step is still current. If it is, I am happy to reach out to the City and get that clarification as I am a resident. But looking for your advice before I make contact! Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions, |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71011 |
Kathleen: Added on August 13 to https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants
Canada: British Columbia licences
| I'd like to get some additional licenses used in BC, Canada approved. The following licenses are substantially similar to the
approved Ottawa Open Data License 2.0. Licenses:
Changes include:
Once I hear back from you I'll add the licenses that are approved- to [*https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#North_America_and_Caribbean*](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#North_America_and_Caribbean) tocomply with the attribution requirements |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71048 |
Kathleen: Added on August 13 to https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants
Any other business
openstreetmap.ng
| Previously
Issues with www.openstreetmap.ng
Other issues
Kathleen to write to Kamil a reminder. Are we satisfied with the updates? |
The website now has a big yellow banner, clarifying that it is a public test site, not endorsed or affiliated with OSMF. They have also added a quiz, which reduces the confusion.
Japan: Enquiry from Corporate Member
| via Dorothea
Hi LWG :) Relaying questions from one of our Corporate Members. Background They had provided the following example location: > Example location: Their initial question was: > Would there be any concerns or issues if we were to use OSM and public data like GSI’s in this way? I pointed them to the legal FAQ, ODbL, community guidelines, need for attribution and information about contacting the LWG. Their rephrased follow-up questions were: > Does Overture Maps’ approach—showing missing OSM building footprints supplemented by Microsoft Building Footprints in a single map layer—comply with the “Horizontal Map Layers” Community Guideline? https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
>
> Example location: What would you like me to relay to them? Thank you. |
Tom Lee has proposed an answer: “Horizontal Layers is fundamentally about keeping data with different licenses separate while they are used in the same map context. The Horizontal Layers Guideline is not relevant in this scenario because the Microsoft Building Footprints dataset is licensed under the ODbL: https://planetarycomputer.microsoft.com/dataset/ms-buildings”
- We are not that familiar with GSI. Microsoft building footprints were relased under ODbL and Microsoft was not intending to keep them separate.
- The company cannot follow Microsoft's example, as they are not dealing with ODbL.
Action item: Kathleen to send wording to Dorothea. (done)
Scheduling 2025 meetings
The LWG set the following meetings for 2025:
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 5 minutes after start.