Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2025-09-08
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
8 September 2025, 17:00 UTC
Minutes of the "OSMF move to the EU" section were redacted, as decided by the LWG.
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Guillaume Rischard (joined ~7 minutes after start, OSMF board member)
- Tom Hummel
- Tom Lee
Absent
- Simon Hughes
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2025-08-11 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 ~ 16 minutes. The LWG decided to redact the minutes.
Guillaume joined ~7 minutes after start.
Heat Map issue
| Background |
|---|
| Proposed response from Kathleen:
Dear all, Best, |
Action item: Tom Hummel to add edits.
From board to trademarks: useOSM
| Background |
|---|
| Dear LWG,
I attended a meeting of the useOSM project a couple of weeks ago, where they explained their vision to the community. After the meeting, I talked to the other OSMF directors, and we were wondering about the name usage. That's why I contacted Emmanuel, so they can ask you at LWG for permission to use the name and to verify whether it complies with the trademark usage. Please don't hesitate to contact the useOSM team for any clarification about their project and aims. I believe that we should support from the OSMF side the community projects that aim to spread the word about OSM. Thanks in advance. On 18/08/2025 8:00 AM CEST Emmanuel Jolaiya <jolaiyaemmanuel@gmail.com> wrote: Dear OSMF Trademarks Team, We write to formally request an agreement for the use of "OSM" as part of 'useOSM'. useOSM is an initiative for helping people discover and use OpenStreetMap (OSM) data. We understand the OSMF Trademark Policy requires an agreement for such usage. We are keen to ensure that useOSM complies with the Foundation's guidelines.We would appreciate it if you could guide us through the necessary steps or provide any required forms for this agreement. Please let us know if you require any further information from our end regarding the project. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, |
The board received an enquiry from the useOSM project, which they forwarded to the LWG. The project seems to be targeted to helping people with OSM. The board seemed inclined to approve it.
Options
- Send the updated trademark agreement template to the useOSM project, to be filled and signed.
- Ask them to use a name without including OSM.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Kathleen and Guillaume are not familiar with the project.
- Héctor seemed to assume that is something we do.
- It is logical to want to use OSM in their name, given the project's scope.
- They seem to have good intentions.
Action item: Kathleen to send to the useOSM project the updated trademark application form, and note that is subject to the board's final approval.
Sent on 13th September.
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 (version 2): Our contributor is concerned that many of the locations in question have been sourced from OpenStreetMap, citing identical geographical co-ordinates to many decimal places. This would represent a breach of OpenStreetMap’s Open Database Licence (ODbL), which requires attribution of source and sharealike. We assume that the import of such data into Google Maps would additionally violate your own requirements in terms of permitted data sources. We have made a good faith attempt to contact Dopper so that they can address these issues, but the available communications channels have not resulted in a response. We therefore feel that it is appropriate to make you aware of the issue so that you can act appropriately to ensure that both your terms and ours are being upheld. To illustrate the apparent OSM-sourcing, our contributor provided some examples of locations with matching co-ordinates:
We would be happy to be of any assistance possible in this matter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=65356 |
Dermot updated the draft letter by adding some examples with coordinates.
On contacting Google Maps about them having Dopper data sourced from OpenStreetMap
- Important to contact someone with the right context, who can deal with this issue.
- Kathleen's contact was a product counsel at Google Maps five years ago, but might have moved to a different position.
- If we would use the DMCA process, it is unclear what we would claim.They might just fix the examples we send them.
- There are over a thousand lawyers at Google, and most do now know of the legal issues at other parts of Google.
- Google takes things very seriously.
Suggestions
- Ask the person who wrote to us if they have more examples or a query used to get the sample they sent to us.
- They probably could not query the Google dataset, just found some examples and searched for more.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- We have specific examples, which represent a more widespread pattern.
- There probably is not a query to mine the problematic points, otherwise it would be provided to LWG.
Action items
- Kathleen to contact the person she knows at Google Maps from professional circles. Kathleen sent a Linkedin request to Eric Dickinson (product counsel for Google Maps).
- Dermot to contact the initial sender and ask for more examples.
Post-meeting update: Kathleen emailed Eric Dickinson (product counsel for Google Maps), who replied that he would look into it.
Canada: City of Quinte West Open Data Licence 1.0 - Ticket #2025081210000317
| I would like to get the following license approved: City of Quinte West Open Data Licence 1.0
Full license text: City of Quinte West Open Data Licence 1.0 The license is based on version 1.0 of the Open Government Licence – Ontario (which is an approved license), adapted for municipal use and jurisdiction. Differences summary with the Ottawa Open Data License 2.0:
|
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71171 |
Their licence looks good.
Action item: Kathleen to add the licence above to the Canada page.
Done on 13th September.
Canada: City of Thunder Bay Open Data Licence - Ticket #2025082810000396
| I'd like to get the following license approved following the process outlined at https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants
The license is substantially similar to other approved licenses, like the Ottawa Open Data License 2.0., the only notable changes are:
Given these differences, I believe that this license is okay to be used as-is https://www.thunderbay.ca/en/city-hall/open-data-licence.aspx |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71812 |
Their licence looks good.
Action item: Kathleen to add the licence above to the Canada page.
Done on 13th September.
Organic Maps: ODbL licence violation
| I would like to report a possible violation of the ODbL license by the
Organic Maps team. The Organic Maps team has removed the original ODbL license on its .mwm binary files here,replacing it with a separate license that is incompatible with the ODbL. I will try my best to explain in layman terms how the relevant app processes function here. Organic Maps, forked from the old version of MapsWithMe, has separate frames/components that come together to complete the overall process. The .mwm files belong to the blue-colored "Maps" frame as seen in the module structure .svg image attached here. The entire Organic Maps app is a Produced Work because it has created a new work (navigation app) resulting from usage of the OSM database and other external sources of data\. The *.mwm generation process uses both OSM and non-OSM sources as inputs. The .mwm files generated asoutput are vector maps = vector database files = map files. Vector maps combine both the functions of vector tiles (Maptiler's OpenMapTiles) AND tools for dealing with large quantities of vector tiles (Protomaps' PMTiles). Vector maps based only on OSM data, such as the OSM wiki's example of Garmin .img files constructed only from OSM data, can be defined to be either Produced Work resulting from using the OSM database, or Derived Work / Derivative Database. Please see here and here. However, .mwm files are vector maps based on both OSM data and non-OSM data\. Does that make .mwm files Collective Databases then? No. The .mwm files contain output from a process called "Wikiparser" which directly extracts and references OSM data (Wikidata IDs and Wikipedia URLs) from the OSM dump .pbf file. The summaries are extracted from the respective Wikidata entries / Wikipedia articles, and embedded withn the .mwm file itself. According to the Organic Maps GitHub page on the Wikiparser, "In production, wikiparser is run with the maps generator, which is somewhat involved to set up" ← this ensures that the Wikiparser sub-process is effectively part of the overall .mwm file generation process. By definition, since .mwm files requires the non-OSM data to reference the OSM data, this not a collection of independent databases, and .mwm files are not Collective Databases. Next, we'll examine the 3 types of Produced Work for a bit. Produced Work resulting from using the OSM database: not applicable in this scenario, because the OSM database is not the only data used in the process of generating .mwm files. External non-OSM data\ is used too. Produced Work resulting from using a Derivative Database: possible. Produced Work resulting from using the OSM database as part of a Collective Database: not applicable in this scenario, since there is no such Collective Database in the first place. Finally, now that we have eliminated all other possibilities, all that remains are the final 2 categories: are .mwm files considered Derivative Databases, or Produced Work resulting from using a Derivative Database? Let's assume that .mwm files are Produced Work resulting from using a Derivative Database. Then according to 4.6 of the ODbL license, this Derivative Database (or a file containing all alterations/methods of alteration to this Derivative Database) needs to be made available to the public. But what is this Derivative Database in this scenario? Is it not the .mwm file itself? To recap, the .mwm file generation process takes in inputs of OSM data and non-OSM data, sends these inputs through a multi-step process including a step where non-OSM data references OSM data, and outputs the .mwm file. If the .mwm file only took in OSM data as input, then it could be considered a Produced Work resulting from using OSM data as input like the Garmin .img scenario The OSM data as input is already available via ODbL license so there is no need for the Garmin .img file creator to release it. But the .mwm file here takes in both OSM data and non-OSM data as input (and its generation process includes a step where the non-OSM data references the OSM data). Although this final product takes on a binary file format like the Garmin .img file, the generation process here invokes Share-Alike w.r.t. the ODbL license. Hence, even if we were to classify it as a Produced Work resulting from a Derivative Database, it would still form the Derivative Database itself. Conclusively, the .mwm file is a Derivative Database. In accordance with 4.4 of the ODbL license, it should be licensed under ODbL or a compatible license. \Other non-OSM data sources included in the .mwm files: Separately, the geocoding guidelines don't apply because the .mwm files are not generated according to the definition of geocoding. The rivial Transformation guidelines are not applicable here too, because .mwm files are resultant from non-OSM observational data, which are considered non-trivial additions to data. |
History, relayed by LWG member
Maps.me one of the good iOS and Android OSM mobile apps. The app still exists, but at some point they pivoted in a direction which was not pleasing to some people, who decided to fork the app and created Organic Maps. However, a feature of both Maps.me and Organic Maps was blending OSM data with non-OSM data (e.g. for POIs for hotels, which were leading to booking.com links). This blending poses legal issues.
The accusation seems to be that they are mixing non-ODbL stuff.
Issues
- New licence does not disclose that a lot of the data is from OSM and claiming new rights for themselves that they cannot sustain on the OSM data.
- While Organic Maps use non-OSM data, they do not seem to list what their data sources are. So, it is difficult to understand what their licence applies to.
- The collective database analysis of the sender's email is totally wrong. The underlying database used to make the wmw files is a collective database, while they claim it isn't.
Other sources
- TIGER data
- SRTM/Aster data. Elevation data from space shuttle - US government public domain data.
- SonnyLidarDTM
- Wikipedia data dumps
- Speed camera data
Seem to include potentially open data and public domain data - do not seem to contain proprietary data.
Suggestion Contact the Organic Maps team and ask them to disclose in their licence that OSM data is under ODbL.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- .mwm binary files are compressed.
- The process for collection seems to be open-source and visible.
- It might be easy for them to rectify the issue.
- The idea that .mwm are big blobs of map data, which are used to power a vector-tile rendering display, seems correct.
- They cannot slap another licence on top of ODbL and not disclose the original OSM data.
Action item: Tom Lee to write to the Organic Maps team that we noticed their licence, that there is no mention of ODbL, while their data seems to be coming from OSM, which is covered by ODbL. This should be accounted for in the licence disclosure.
Links shared
- https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/tree/master/tools/python/maps_generator
- https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/tree/master/tools/python/data - does not seem to contain the hotel data,
Post-meeting note: Tom Lee emailed Organic maps regarding attribution.
Anti-migrant website - Ticket #2025082310000163
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
| I wanted to draw your attention to the use of Open Street Map on a new domain at https://migranthotels.net (redirecting to https://howfarfrommydoorstep.co.uk/ )The website seems to exist purely for the sake of identifying possible locations where people seeking asylum may be housed; information which can be and is being used to target and harass groups and individuals based upon race and ethnicity. Whilst their FAQ claims that the website owners are merely compiling data, they clearly allude to disseminating information enabling such harassment.https://howfarfrommydoorstep.github.io/clive/FAQs.html"At the moment we are focused on compiling the most accurate hotel data. We are not involved in the organisation of any protests, but we are happy to pass on details of organised, peaceful protests if asked."
I appreciate that the open and free nature of OSM raises questions about if censorship or denial of service is justified, that is a question perhaps for the OSM foundation to consider, however I wished to raise that this example may be one you may give some though to; given the current climate and the misuse of such information in potentially criminal and violent actions. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71587 |
Anti-migrant political campaign - they use tiles served by Carto and our Nominatim. Guillaume flagged that part to the Operations Working Group (OWG).
The terms of service specify that we can remove server access if it reflects bad on the project.
Action items
- Kathleen to write back that they are free to write to Carto. Done on 6th October.
- Guillaume to forward the email to the OWG and ask them to block access to our Nominatim servers.
Bulgarian cadastre agency Open Data Licence - Ticket #2025082410000116
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
| The Bulgarian cadastre agency has released a lot of useful data recently. It is on their website under a section called "Open data" but they don't mention its license. You can download all anonymised buildings and parcel data which includes addresses and other information of interest for the local OSM community.
Unfortunately they've written "All rights reserved" on all of their pages. The license is described in the directive which can be found here - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj/eng. Can you please verify that data licensed under this license can be added to OSM? Thank you in advance. If you've already reviewed that license, please let me know. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71609 |
The sender wrote to the Bulgarian governmental agency regarding an "Open data" section which offers downloads, but all their pages mention "All rights reserved".
Issues
- The sender received a reply that the standard licence is the EU Directive on Open Data.
- The document the governmental agency pointed out, is not a licence.
Suggestion
- Write back to them that "Thank you for the clarification. OpenStreetMap's intend is to include geodata in your country in OSM, which is governed by ODbL. We will attribute data sources in your country on our contributor page [link and description]. Please let us know, if that is acceptable or if there is anything that you would like changed." If they say they are ok, then they have given us a licence. The we would need to document that we have confirmed permission from the government of Bulgaria.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- As this comes from an employee and the official email from the governmental agency, regardless of how "correct" the answer is, it becomes correct, by them saying it. Even if it is not a licence.
- We tried to do something similar with Australia.
Action item: Kathleen to write back with language to get Bulgaria to confirm a license at least as to OSM. Done on 14th September.
PDL licence
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
| To legal@ I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner.I am very pleased to hear that the compatibility of PDL has been confirmed.Thank you also for creating the page. The application procedure you have outlined looks good to me.Please allow me to make two requests below. 1. Explicit statement that the default PDL without special notes is compatible Following the description of the Canadian license, could you explicitly list as an item that PDL without special notes is compatible with ODbL? PDL Original Text: On the Canada page, there is a mention of the original license in the list as follows:> OGL Canada 2.0, compatible (reference missing) > https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants 2. Regarding the page title Also, I apologise for confusing the relationship between Japanese map data and the Survey Act. Going forward, when making applications, it seems better to adopt a workflow where applicants specify particular datasets and then check whether those datasets are subject to the provisions of each item. Additionally, there has been no comprehensive documentation in English about the Survey Act until now, and the knowledge of how to handle it has remained within OSMF Japan. I would like to take this opportunity to create a page on the OSM wiki to summarise the relationship between Japan's Survey Act and OSM licenses.When the page is completed, I will send you the URL. Could you please link to it from this page on the OSMF wiki? Also, OSMF Japan has built a good relationship with the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan, and if there are any uncertainties about the implementation of the Survey Act, we can obtain advice from them. Please let me know when this approval regarding compatibility can be officially announced.This is one of the long-awaited developments for the Japanese OSM community and is very big news! —- I just made a wiki page to summarise the Japanese Survey Act. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan/JP_surveyact_and_OSM If you need any more information, please don't hesitate to let me know. I would like to add a clause regarding PDL to this page after the OSMF's official approval. |
Not discussed.
OSM Academy
| Email and updates shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Meanwhile I removed every link from the wiki page and pinged the author in the talk page.
Il giorno sab 16 ago 2025 alle ore 22:18 Ivan R. ha scritto: The website is composed for half by lorem ipsum and placeholder images and information (fake emails, fake addresses, fake employees ecc.) and for the other half by request to donate money (to whom?). They use "osm" in the name, url, and they also use a modified version of the OSM logo.The wiki also says that "OSM Academy" is a trademarked name: "OSM Academy® is a registered trademark, https://osmacademy.org/"Apart from the logo and use of "osm", the website doesn't reference OpenStreetMap in any way. In the past it used to mention OSM (https://web.archive.org/web/20241108101012/https://osmacademy.org/), but now not anymore and just seems like a scammy website asking for money. |
Not discussed.
Scheduling 2025 meetings
The LWG set the following meetings for 2025:
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 7 minutes after start.