Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2025-10-06
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
8 September 2025, 17:00 UTC
Minutes of two topics were redacted, as decided by the LWG.
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
Absent
- Simon Hughes
- Tom Hummel
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2025-09-08 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?
Board items
Possible effects on OSM of new Australian E-Safety legislation
Discussion for 8 minutes. Minutes redacted, as decided by the LWG.
Topic redacted
Discussion for 2 minutes. Topic and minutes redacted, as decided by the LWG.
Heat Map issue
| Background |
|---|
| Proposed response from Kathleen:
Dear all, Best, |
Previous 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 (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 |
Kathleen emailed Eric Dickinson (product counsel for Google Maps), who replied that he would look into it.
The examples of the original mapper were exact matches. Dermot found some inexact matches, which might be because Google already had the POI.
Action items
- Kathleen to check with Eric Dickinson (product counsel for Google Maps).
- Dermot to check with original mapper on providing additional examples, if possible.
Organic Maps – Potential violation – Ticket 71343
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
|
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 as output 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 [#Garmin_maps_(.img_files)._They_are_vector_database_files_all_right_but_they_are_not_really_made_%E2%80%9Cfor_the_extraction_of_the_original_data%E2%80%9D,_or_are_they?) 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](https://github.com/organicmaps/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](#Garmin_maps_(.img_files)._They_are_vector_database_files_all_right_but_they_are_not_really_made_%E2%80%9Cfor_the_extraction_of_the_original_data%E2%80%9D,_or_are_they?). 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: TIGER) data SRTM/Aster data Wikipedia data dumps Separately, the geocoding guidelines don't apply because the .mwm files are not generated according to the definition of geocoding. The Trivial 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. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71343 |
Tom Lee had emailed Organic maps regarding attribution. They haven't replied yet.
Action item
Tom to post the email to their GitHub issue tracker.
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.
Indeed, it is a bit confusing and only spans 4 pages... Attached you can find it in Bulgarian (the PDF file) and its translation (the text file). It is a bit over the top but after reading it a few more times today, I think that I found what they meant. Our law on access to public information ("ЗДОИ") refers to "Regulation on the standard terms and conditions for the reuse of public sector information and its publication in an open format". The regulation states the following: > Art. 3. (1) Public sector organizations shall provide the information referred to in Art. 2 for reuse unconditionally or under conditions that are within the standard conditions set out in this Regulation.(2) Where the information does not contain and is not accompanied by a notice or conditions for reuse, it may be used without conditions or restrictions. They explicitly mentioned the second paragraph. Mapper’s machine translation of “License”: https://files.osmfoundation.org/s/XMqPoft7FrALB5H “Public sector organisations provide the information referred to in Article 2 for reuse unconditionally or under conditions that are within the standard conditions set out in the Regulation. Where the information does not contain and is not accompanied by a notice or conditions for reuse, it may be used without conditions or restrictions.” “Given that the data is provided under an "open license" within the meaning of the Directive, no additional explicit mention of the license on the website is envisaged. This does not change the assumption that all users have the right to freely use, distribute, process, and share the available open data, including for the creation of derivative products and services.” |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71609 |
The Bulgarian agency had sent to the Bulgarian mappers information which is more complicated than the email that the mappers sent to the LWG. The Bulgarian mappers replied to the LWG's first email, but not to the follow-up inquiry yet.
Dermot joined 18' after start.
Important sections
- "Given that the data is provided under an "open license" under the meaning of the Directive, no further explicit mention is provided for the website license. This does not change the assumption that all users have the right to use, distribute, process and share available open data freely, including for the creation of derivative products and services."
- "Public sector organizations shall provide the information under Art. 2 for reuse unconditionally or under conditions that are within the standard conditions specified in the Regulation. In cases where the information does not contain and is not accompanied by a notice or by conditions for reuse, may be used without conditions or restrictions."
Suggestion: Note on the OSM wiki the important sections noted above as the Bulgarian agency's license release.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- The Bulgarian cadastre seems to have taken the EU Directive as law, and is not expecting or requiring a national implementation law.
- The mapper who contacted us was fairly diligent.
Action item
Kathleen to reply tha the Bulgarian data appears to have no restrictions and is okay to use. Also to ask mapper to document on the wiki the official Bulgarian response, the translation and this communication with the LWG.
Done on 2025-10-07.
From Satoshi: compatibility of 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 compatibleFollowing 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: https://www.digital.go.jp/assets/contents/node/basic_page/field_ref_resources/f7fde41d-ffca-4b2a-9b25-94b8a701a037/3d15f10d/20241122_resource_open_data_01.pdfOn 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_variants2. Regarding the page titleThe page name includes "local variant," but if it's possible to change it, it might be better to remove the word "local" and just use "variant."This is because PDL is used not only by local governments but also by central government ministries and affiliated organisations. Current: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/PDL_Japan_and_local_variants My proposal: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/PDL_Japan_and_variantsAlso, 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. |
Satoshi IIDA wrote back and had a couple of requests, including if we can say whether the default PDL is compatible (which would be the same as OGL Canada) and link the URL. Everything looks good.
Action item
Kathleen to clean up the OSM wiki page and write back to Satoshi, so that an announcement can be made.
Canada Open Government License: City of Cornwall
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| I am writing in accordance to https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants to inform that I will be adding the City of Cornwall's variant of the Open Government license to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#North_America_and_Caribbean. It is substantially the same; it is based on the Open Government License - Ontario 1.0, which has already been deemed compatible. It differs only in the name of the locality referenced throughout the license (and an outdated mention of Queen Elizabeth II instead of King Charles III).
I am looking into the possibility of importing the addresses provided by the city on their Open Data site to OSM, as currently there is no address data at all in this municipality. I will be creating a forum post and wiki page for this import next. I will also look into the possibility of importing other open data provided by the municipality, such as zones and buildings, as the current OSM data is all many years out of date in comparison, but this is something I will discuss in the forum post first. The City of Cornwall's OGL license is available at https://www.cornwall.ca/en/play-here/resources/Maps/City-of-Cornwall-Open-Government-Licence.pdf |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=72906 |
The sender reported that City of Cornwall variant of the Open Government license is the same as the Ontario licence, with only the name changed.
The licence looks good.
Action item
Kathleen to write back.
Compatibility of Italian DBSN database, released under ODbL 1.0
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| The italian DBSN is a geographical database made by IGM (military geographic Institute) that integrates data from various governmental official sources (cadastre, etc) as well as OSM and others. See here https://www.igmi.org/it/dbsn-database-di-sintesi-nazionale
This DB would a good source for imports, especially for buildings and to integrate missing data in OSM. However, italian OSM contributors are currently puzzled about the license compatibility of the DB with OSM. The DBSN is released in the ODbL license (same as OSM), version 1.0. On the OSM wiki apparently there don't exit a page about the compatibility of OSM with data released on the same license, or at least we could't find it. Could you provide feedback on that? In case, could you update the wiki? Thank you since now. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=73075 |
It seems that the Italian database was released under ODbL and it is compatible.
We had another recent enquiry from Italy, related to a document from Wikimedia.
OSM Academy
| Email 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. |
Two websites:
osmacademy.org
- The website appears to be down.
- The OSM wiki page was created by Brazil Singh (OSMF board member).
- The logo is a variation of the official OSM logo.
Main issues
- Statement on the OSM wiki that “OSM Academy® is a registered trademark, https://osmacademy.org//”
- Report that the website was soliciting donations (since removed).
- Intent of the project?
Other points mentioned during discussion
- The OSM wiki page was created by Brazil Singh (OSMF board member)
- They have a Facebook page, using the OSM logo.
Action item
Tom Lee to email Brazil Singh and ask him about 1) the OSM academy mention of the registered trademark and 2) the report regarding soliciting donations.
Attribution reports - Wikicamps
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Hello,
There is an app called Wikicamps for travellers wanting to find camping places and points of interest. There are at least 5 versions: WikiCamps Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada and UK. The Australian version is a paid app, and I believe the others are as well. The app was purchased by the G’Day Parks Group a year-or-two back and changed (for the worse) significantly. The app has on-line and off-line versions. The on-line maps are sourced from Google and are clearly attributed. Prior to the purchase of the app by the G’Day Group, the off-line maps were attributed to OSM. Now the attribution has disappeared. I contacted WikiCamps in May 2025 and queried whether the offline maps were still sourced from OSM, and if so, why was there no attribution. They replied that OSM was still used for offline maps, and the “attribution had been hidden by graphical elements” – and their team were working on it. I have contacted them many times since about why there is still no attribution, and they just say “they are working on it” and refuse to give a time-frame. How long do we politely wait for them to fix the problem ? (Screenshots attached) |
Not discussed.
Scheduling 2025 meetings
The LWG set the following meetings for 2025:
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.