Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2025-11-10
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
10 November 2025, 17:00 UTC
Minutes of some topics were not published, as decided by the LWG.
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
- Héctor Ochoa Ortiz (board)
Absent
- Simon Hughes
- Tom Hummel
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2025-10-06 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
Topic 1 redacted
Discussion for 1 minute. Topic and minutes redacted, as decided by the LWG.
Topics 2 and 3 redacted
Discussion for 18 minutes. Topics and minutes redacted, as decided by the LWG.
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Hello non-DWG DMCA people, and other people addressed by the previous email!
The complainant's email has created a DWG ticket for this. If anyone wants to comment on that, email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025110710000491] tiszavilag". I'll send some general information to the complainant suggesting general things they can do going forward (https://www.strath.ac.uk/professionalservices/informationservices/cybersecurity/protectyourdata/strongpasswords/ is some general advice) and more specifically how they can search for specific information in OSM that might have come from this data breach and what to do about it (basically, contact the DWG if they find anything). At the risk of stating the obvious, despite being nominally a member of the EU, Hungary is not a "normal western country". See e.g. https://rsf.org/en/country/hungary . If you search for news about this data breach most search result returns will be from media with a particular view on the politics involved (last night, most seemed to be on the side of the current Hungarian government). Since then it's crossed the radar of the data security world so somewhat independent organisations such as e.g. https://haveibeenpwned.com/breach/Tisza also appear (although in this case the "recommended action" is to "buy a product from our sponsor" - that is unfortunately also common, hence me suggesting the strath.ac.uk link earlier). If anyone has any other questions please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025110710000491] tiszavilag" cc any other recipients - we can cc those recipents on reply. Best Regards, |
It seems to be a simple case. The website is displaying OSM tiles as a basemap and their data, which allegedly has personal information, is overlaid. The website is not accessible at the moment.
Suggestion: Ignore for the time being, unless it comes back online - in that case we could shut their access to OSMF tiles.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Generally speaking, it is a violation of our terms.
- There was a similar incident in Belarus, with a map showing private information.
Action item
Kathleen to reply to Andy that this website seems to be offline now, but generally speaking such usage would likely be a breach of our tiles TOS
Done November 10.
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 |
Not discussed during the November 2025 meeting.
Previous 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. Previous action item: Tom Lee to reply to this user and point to PR in GitHub with updated attribution.– see emails ccing legal@ from Oct 14 New updated inquiry from Oct 10 - https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=73431 Hello, "Because your project is open source, it provides public instructions for creating the mwm files, which satisfies 4.6(b) of the ODbL. However, to our knowledge the attribution requirements of the ODbL are not currently being met by your project.” This is not correct, the full map generator code is no longer open source so you can’t replicate the mwm files. Most prominently route relations (e.g., hiking and bikes), but also the fix for the bug I filed here: https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/8507 with fix in this PR, with no code that would explain it: https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/10887 I know that requires map generator changes, because I fixed the issue in the fork CoMaps before Organic Maps did the same thing (likely copying my approach) https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/pulls/1165 I still believe they would qualify via 4.6 a) as long as they keep their CDN with map data open for others 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the internet. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=71343 |
Done.
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 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 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 Current: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/PDL_Japan_and_local_variants 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. —- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan/JP_surveyact_and_OSM If you need any more information, please don't hesitate to let me know. |
Previous action item
Kathleen to clean up the OSM wiki page and write back to Satoshi, so that an announcement can be made.
Done on November 16.
Canada: City of Cornwall's variant of the Open Government license
| 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 |
Action item
Kathleen to write back that the licence looks good.
Done on November 10.
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 |
Kathleen replied on November 10.
Australia – tracing from CC BY 4.0 imagery excluded from CC BY waiver (via legal@)
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Hi LWG, After an 8 year effort to obtain permission to use CC BY licensed data from Queensland's Department of Resources we obtained the CC BY waiver as documented at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/qld-dnrmmrrd-cc-by-waiver/137587 however in their email providing us the waiver they said the following. I am pleased advise the OSM waiver has been signed (attached). Including:
1. Property Address Queensland - by area of interest Please note that the request to waiver the imagery is not possible due to licensing constraints from the vendor. Specifically, they excluded their aerial imagery. Their imagery is CC BY 4.0 licensed however they aren't the owner of these aerial imagery datasets they merge and publish. Given their statements in the email below, also quoted here, does the LWG have a view on if this would be sufficient to use their CC BY 4.0 licensed aerial imagery to derive features and information for inclusion in OSM? After a review, we have confirmed that all relevant public imagery services contain datasets owned by other organisations, including private companies, local government, and federal government agencies. We do not have the authority to waive CC BY (or BY-NC / BY-SA) licensing terms for these datasets. We agree that attribution by OpenStreetMap and its users through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors is sufficient to provide attribution in a “reasonable manner” in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license for our imagery datasets. We also note that CC BY licensing does not limit the license type of vector features/datasets extracted or derived from imagery data. OpenStreetMap and its users are welcome to leverage the public imagery services licensed under CC BY 4.0 as-is to extract/derive vector features stored in OSM and licensed under ODbL. |
Andrew Harvey wrote that Queensland has signed a waiver. They excluded the CC BY 4.0 licenced aerial imagery from the waiver, as they are not the owners.
Question from Andrew: is it ok to trace from the CC BY 4.0 aerial imagery?
LWG's answer: Yes, it is possible to trace.
Action item
Kathleen to reply to Andrew that we agree that CC-BY-4.0 licensed imagery can be used for tracing.
Done on November 10.
License of GlobalBuildingAtlas data
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| via legal@
Dear OpenStreetMap Team, We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the openness and collaborative spirit of the OpenStreetMap (OSM) community. Our project, GlobalBuildingAtlas (GBA), has greatly benefited from OSM data, and we fully recognize the importance of complying with the ODbL license requirements. However, part of the GBA dataset was developed using commercial imagery and data provided by our partner, Planet. The licensing terms for these sources restrict commercial use, creating a conflict between ODbL’s share-alike requirements and Planet’s non-commercial restrictions. To address this issue responsibly, we would like to request your advice—and, if possible, your permission—regarding one of the following approaches: 1.Dual Dataset Approach: Publish a separate dataset containing only the OSM-derived building footprints used in GBA under the ODbL license, while keeping the original GBA dataset (which includes Planet data) unchanged and licensed under CC BY-NC. 2. Special Permission:Alternatively, would it be possible to obtain permission from OpenStreetMap to distribute the current GBA dataset under CC BY-NC, despite its inclusion of OSM data? Our goal is to maximize the accessibility and impact of the GBA dataset while fully respecting all licensing terms. The dataset has already received positive feedback from NGOs and humanitarian organizations, particularly for its potential use in Global South applications. If we are unable to publish the dataset due to licensing constraints, it would represent a significant loss to the community—something we deeply wish to avoid. Thank you very much for your time and guidance. We would greatly appreciate your advice on the most appropriate way to proceed. Best regards, Note: I believe this is the dataset at issue: https://github.com/zhu-xlab/GlobalBuildingAtlas |
The GlobalBuildingAtlas is a project of a research lab in Germany. They were asked to make their data ODbL. Their dataset was developed using commercial imagery from a commercial provider. They asked for guidance on how to comply with ODbL, while complying with the terms of their partnership.
- A waiver would be impossible.
- The original GBA dataset does not seem to be filtered for OSM.
On the suggestion of a Dual Dataset
- They could releasing two databases with instructions to mix them, but there is a licence problem, which may be passed to their users.
- They may intend to release an OSM-reduced dataset * reduced by a reference to the commercial dataset. This dataset would have a "shadow" of the non-commercial data.
- Filtering or combing by downstream users seems likely.
Suggestion
- Caution them against filteting the other dataset that they would distribute in parallel. As long as downstream users keep the layers separate (separate files), they should be ok.
Comments related to the collective database guideline
- It mentions "An OSM dataset and a non-OSM dataset combined in a single database will be considered independent (and thus form a Collective Database rather than a Derivative Database) so long as the data used for a particular data type 'is either all OSM or all non-OSM within the same regional cut."
- It also mentions "Thus, an OSM dataset used in combination with a non-OSM dataset will be considered a Collective Database, and will not trigger share-alike when: the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other; or"
- This bullet is an expansion of the first paragraph, which mentions the consideration for unifying data type, and under that umbrella that the lack of references is relevant.
- This bullet refers to physical separation (different files).
On use cases
- Their ultimate use case probably depends on the non-profit organisation they work with.
- Private use: The ODbL does not apply for private use
- Academic use:
- There might be some academic/research uses, where it might not matter having duplicates, especially if you can calculate the overlap.
- A research paper could publish findings/statistics, without publishing the map.
On deduping
- They could only dedupe for private use.
- Deduping and then distributing is not allowed.
- Distributing the files separately, and then downstream deduping in private, might be ok.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Any cut of OSM would be under ODbL.
- You can have multiple layers of the same thing, without deduping.
- Building footprints in Europe and N.America are still commercially gated.
- Google is releasing an open dataset only for the developing world.
- As the second dataset is released unde CC-BY-NC, there are a lot of constraints for researchers.
Action item
Kathleen to reply: It would be okay for the footprints to be separate dataset/data files. However, note that neither dataset should be filtered against the other, as that would result in a conflated dataset. Downstream users should also be cautioned against combining the datasets.
Per Collective Database Guidelines:
Thus, an OSM dataset used in combination with a non-OSM dataset will be considered a Collective Database, and will not trigger share-alike when:
- the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other;
Also note that private, non-public uses are not subject to share-alike requirements.
Done on November 16.
Canadian Open Data licences: City of Lethbridge
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| I would like to request that the Open Data License, which applies to data on the City of Lethbridge's open data portal, be evaluated for its acceptableness. It is located here: https://opendata.lethbridge.ca/pages/open-data-license
When compared to the Ottawa Open Data License, there are minor differences. Perhaps most substantial differences are that first, there is no attribution requirement, and second, an indemnification clause exists. Beyond that, the license is not perpetual (unlike the Ottawa ODL), the license states that the licensee assumes all risk and responsibility by using the information, and that the information is not guaranteed to be accurate or complete. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=73371 |
Differences to the Ottawa Open Data License
- Attribution not required
- Indemnification
- Not perpetual
Key part that makes this okay:
This is Version 1.0 of the City of Lethbridge - Open Data License. The City may make changes to the terms of this license from time to time and issue a new version of the license. Your use of the Information will be governed by the terms of the license in force as of the date you accessed the Information.
Done on November 10.
Canadian Open Data licences: Metro Vancouver
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Hello,
I am looking to add approval for this OGL 2.0 licensed data. The license is short and doesn't appear to be different than the Ottawa Open Data License 2.0. https://open-data-portal-metrovancouver.hub.arcgis.com/pages/Open%20Government%20Licence 'Thank you, |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=74283 Ticket#2025103010000412 |
Vancouver licence is okay - Done on November 10.
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| My name is Emma Blue and I work at an international non-profit MobilityData that maintains GTFS, the widely-used international standard for sharing transit data with riders. Our team had some questions about ambiguities in OSM legal requirements for geocoding, and Maggie Cawley recommended I reach out to you.'
We have an online platform where we share international transit data called the Mobility Database, and we've been using OSM to define locations. We've looked at your geocoding guidelines in depth but we're still unclear if we're meeting the criteria to ensure we don't trigger share-alike requirements and only require attribution. Could you help clarify this? Here's our current use case of OSM:
We use it without any modifications. This table is only used internally by our development team.
<img src="Pictures/10000001000001D20000010D4BD9D7EE.png" We’d like to know:
|
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=74141 Ticket#2025102710000321 |
Seems fine. Under geocoding guidelines their use is ok, as long as the users don't collect enough responses to recreate the source data.
Suggestion: Ask them if they have any API terms which prevent people from creating a geodatabase which reflects the original OSM feature.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- The bounding box is probably not derived from our data. Even if it was, it would probably be an insubstantial extract.
- As long as the bounding box is not OSM's, it should be ok.
Action item
Tom Lee to draft a response and share it with the LWG.
To Trademarks
Stateofthemap.in Project trademark licence application
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Hi Ark, Darter, Jaisen, Kevin, Naveen and Devdatta (cc'ed trademarks@) :)
Thank you for sending the domain and project trademark license application for stateofthemap.in, as I suggested to you :) Likely process @Kathleen (Chair of Trademarks subcommittee and Licensing Working Group) @Ark, License: https://files.osmfoundation.org/ link |
Kathleen to double-check that she has forwarded the email to the board.
Suggestion: Add the topic to the board's agenda.
Local Chapters selling merchandise
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Dear LWG,
I have one doubt regarding our Trademark Policy. In point 4.4, it says that "You need a trademark licence if you want to make merchandise with the OSM marks for commercial use.". However, as Local Chapters are allowed to use OSM trademarks, do they also need to get the licence or can they just sell right away? Thank you in advance! Best, Héctor Ochoa Ortiz¹ |
It seems covered by the Local Chapter agreement.
Any other Business
EWG microgrant to be awarded to applicant from Russia
(from EWG via Héctor, present at the meeting)
The EWG selected the projects to receive Microgrants one week ago, however, one of the selected applicants is based in Russia. The EWG is wondering whether the OSMF can pay him, based on sanctions for Russia.
Kathleen left 63' after start.
The EWG is thinking of not publishing the selected projects yet, but contacting the applicants directly and publishing the results after it is clear whether we can pay him.
The LWG cannot answer right now.
Kathleen replied after the meeting: This appears to be the most complete searchable list, and he does not appear, so I think he is okay https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/
Objection to the display of an entity's (UMBRAOSM) logo on the OSM Wiki Ticket#2025102110000359
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Dear all,
Please, pay attention to this situation. As a Brazilian citizen and member, I request the removal of the Umbraosm brand from the page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Logos), as it is not a registered trademark with our government (see attached document of INPI). Furthermore, the entity remains unregistered (attached Redesim document and can be consulted also in the official website - https://consultacnpj.redesim.gov.br/) and continues to solicit donations on its website and through other means - https://www.umbraosm.com.br/. Also, there is no transparency, and it is unclear where these donations are being transferred. The entity recently received funds from a foreign company (OpenCage) and is using young mappers from a university in the Ceará (https://doity.com.br/mapeiacrato2edicao) without the professor or students being aware of this situation (that the entity's coordinator is being paid).Furthermore, the owner of the OpenCage was also unaware of the irregular status of this entity (which, legally, does not exist in our country). It should be noted that this same entity was unanimously rejected last year by the LCCWG when it submitted an application to represent a local chapter to Brazil. We request that measures be taken, as the situation of misunderstanding remains due to the name, which seems to imply that they represent Brazilians, when this is not true. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=73915 |
Not discussed.
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) |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=72252 |
Not discussed.
Possible license violation: Mixing OSM and Google Maps data
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Via legal@
Dear Licensing Working Group, I would like to report a possible violation of the Open Database License (ODbL). The website or application www.deepimmo.de appears to display OpenStreetMap data in combination with Google Maps or Google Places data (such as locations, reviews, or POI details). Deepimmo is providing exposes for real estate agents combining these information behind a paywall and also for print documents. This combination seems to be license-incompatible, because:
This likely constitutes an improper mixing of incompatible data sources, potentially undermining the licensing integrity of OpenStreetMap data and contributors’ rights. I kindly ask you to review this case. I can provide further details or screenshots if required. |
Not discussed.
Itiner-e Ticket#2025110910000166
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| In global media an academic project by the name of Itiner-e is getting a lot of coverage. It is a map showing the Roman network of roads: https://itiner-e.org/
As you can see, they are using OpenStreetMap data for the purpose of rendering natural features and roads (when enabled). Unfortunately, there is no mention op OpenStreetMap anywhere, and certainly no attribution. This appears to be a fairly high profile project, so I figured this might be one where someone from the legal team reaches out directly, rather than one of us mappers. The project lacks contact information, but the lead researcher, Tom Brughmans, can be reached here: <email address redacted> Kind regards, |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=74684 Ticket#2025110910000166 |
Not discussed.
License violation report – gymplius.lt using OpenStreetMap without attribution Ticket#2025110910000175
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Subject: License violation report – gymplius.lt using OpenStreetMap without attribution
Dear OpenStreetMap Foundation Licensing Working Group, I would like to report a license violation of the Open Database License (ODbL).The website https://gymplius.lt appears to use OpenStreetMap data (map tiles and layout)but does not provide the required attribution (“© OpenStreetMap contributors”) or a link to the license. Details:
Could you please review this case and advise whether any further steps can be takento ensure compliance with the ODbL license terms?Thank you for your time and attention. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=74685 Ticket#2025110910000175 |
Not discussed.
Scheduling 2025 meetings
The LWG set the following meetings for 2025:
Dec 08, at 18:00 UTC
Meeting adjourned 1 hour and 11 minutes after start.