Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2025-12-08
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
8 December 2026, 18:00 UTC
Minutes of two topics were not published, as decided by the LWG.
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
- Craig Allan (board)
Absent
- Simon Hughes
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2025-11-10 Approved, minutes of one topic to be redacted.
Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi.
Any updates on reported attribution cases?
Reports in OTRS:
- Ticket#2021081210000057 printed maps with false copyright
- Ticket#2022011910000082 interparcel.com: Dermot Emailed them on 10th Nov, no reply
- Ticket#2022012610000149 https://poster.printmijnstad.nl/editor/city
- Ticket#2022033010000217
- complaint that Aberdeen city council may not be attributing correctly – https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/news/consultation-starts-street-improvements-ashgrove-road
- Note that Aberdeen credits Ordnance Survey, so possible OS is using OSM as one of many sources and the full attribution is not getting carried through
- Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop
- Hermes UK changed name to evri. So this is an old issue.
- Ticket#2022062610000078 -
- Härryda, Sweden, uses OpenStreetMap for an app they developed. Inside the app there are no license references to OSM.
- You can see the app on the Google Apps store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=se.harryda.medborgar.app&gl=US
- Ticket#2021120810000146 mondialrelay.fr not attributing correctly
- Ticket#2022120510000177 — Club Vosgien complaint – any reply?
Administrative items
Calendar for 2026
See the dates at the bottom of this page.
Spam emails to legal-questions
Spam in legal-questions OTRS queue: Mostly cleaned - thank you.
Answering “non-legal” queries to legal-questions
Many non-legal queries going to legal-questions@ because people do not know where to send them. These are typically answered by Kathleen and include PLOS permission requests by researchers, who have to get a form signed by OSMF in order to publish them.
Brief discussion about using OTRS/Znuny.
Decision: Tom Lee to be checking the OTRS queue one week after each LWG meeting and reply to easy questions. The LWG has some email templates for common questions.
Tom Hummel's departure
Tom Hummel would like to depart from the LWG, because he has trouble keeping up with the main issues and hasn't been able to help in the past few months. He could help in the future with LWG German issues. Tom is welcome to be in the group, even if he feels his expertise is not necessarily relevant in every issue. He has also been experiencing some email issues. He can stay in the LWG mailing list as a retired LWG member.
New LWG videoroom
A new LWG videoroom was created - the previous one was owned by Guillaume.
Board items
OSMF move to the EU – Reply to Bird&Bird
The board should reply to Emily Patel if they have decided not to meet with her, it is very rude to leave her hanging.
New board liaison
Guillaume was the board's liaison on the LWG. The new LWG liaison is Craig Allan, and the back-up liaison is Maurizio Napolitano.
Kathleen will share the 2026 LWG meeting dates with the board and will include Craig.
Two topics redacted
Discussion for 1 minute. Topics and minutes not published, as decided by the LWG.
Heat Map issue
| Proposed response from Kathleen:
Dear all, Best, |
Action item
Kathleen to send the answer as-is above. Done on 8 December 2025.
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.
Previous action item: Dermot to check with original mapper on providing additional examples, if possible.
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| My name is Emma Blue and I work at MobilityData, an international non-profit 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’d like to know:
|
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=74141 |
Done by Tom Lee.
MobilityData’s use of the data takes a couple of forms, but they are covered as produced works and/or by the geocoding guideline. We confirmed their use does not emit geodata in a manner that could be used to reconstruct ODbL-licensed data.
Any other business
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| To Legal@
I'm an active OpenStreetMap mapper [1] from India. I want to highlight apotentially harmful usage of OSM tiles on a website calledproxyearth.org. The website came online, revealing sensitive dataregarding millions of Indian mobile users and plotting their whereaboutsusing OSM tiles. Some of the articles detailing it can be found at [2][3]. The website is loading map tiles via OSM infra. Can this access berevoked? It's not a website which we (as a OSM community) would like tosupport and the website is plain bad for everyone. [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/sahilister Let me know if you need anymore details. Sahil PS - The case didn't fit for https://github.com/openstreetmap/tile-attribution as they have full OSM attribution :D |
The website is accessing OSMF tiles.
Kathleen forwarded the email to Board for determination on blocking (Dorothea’s note: proxyearth.org currently redirects to leakdata.org). Done on 8 December 2025.
To trademarks
From SotM-WG: Feedback on SotM 2026 sponsorship brochure
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Via trademarks@/Dorothea
Dear Legal Working Group, We are actually rewrite the sponsorship prospectus for SotM 2026 in Paris. In "We" there are :
We need your help about the new way to buy the Sponsorship package call "Supporter". This new way is if a company want be a "Supporter", they will can buy it on Pretix and inform the "SotM Sponsors Working Group". But if for X reason the "SotM Sponsors Working Group" refuse this company, of course we will refund the Pretix payment. But we need you do find the good legal note to write into prospectus and having your comments about this way. The WIP is on : https://nextcloud.openstreetmap.fr/index.php/s/wLorwH5camHPsX7 Here you can find the commentary of Dorothea:
|
This is the first year that the Supporter sponsorships for the State of the Map conference, organised by the OSM Foundation, will be available for purchase via the SotM website.
Dorothea proposed:
- the addition of wording in the sponsorship brochure in order to avoid any legal issues in the case OSMF wants to decline a sponsorship after it has been purchased from the website.
- the SotM-WG to contact the LWG and ask for input on the wording.
Supporter sponsors get a free ticket for the conference and their logo displayed on the SotM website.
LWG proposed wording
Supporter packages subject to approval by OSMF. OSMF reserves the right to decline sponsorships from Supporter packages purchased via the SotM website/Pretix. OSMF will refund any declined sponsorships in full. The purchaser may elect a partial refund of the difference between the Supporter package and the Business ticket price if they still wish to have a ticket to SotM.
From board: Enquiry for 2026 LWG budget
| The board is currently setting up the Foundation's budget for 2026. To get numbers as accurate as possible, we would like to ask you what you expect as expenses for 2026.
The board would like to suggest to set up again a budget of 3000 EUR for you to spend on trademark watching and similar recurring and related items. As I'm aware that the payment cycles are less often than yearly, I would like to point out that the budget can be adjusted by the board if it is necessary. The sole purpose of the budget is that we can assert that the Foundation stays afloat and can explain to Foundation members and potential donors at any time what it is spending money on. If you want to set a different budget then please answer by at latest the end of 9 Dec. |
Kathleen contacted our Trademark attorneys and no Trademark filing is expected this year.
Done on 8 December 2025.
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 |
- Any community member can create an OSM logo to represent their group, as long as the group is connected to OSM.
- The national logo for Brazil is a different one.
- The UmbraOSM logo is categorised under "other logos". These logos are not official.
- There was never a requirement in OSM for a mapper group to have official registration in a country for activities such as for organising mappy hour. There is an exception for Local Chapters, but UmbraOSM is not a Local Chapter.
Action item
Kathleen to write back that there is no violation. Done on 8 December 2025.
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 |
The sender tried to contact Wikicamps but has not heard back for a long time.
Action item
Tom Lee to draft an email to Wikicamps.
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. |
www.deepimmo.de doesn’t seem accessible
Kathleen asked for more information on 9 December 2025.
LWG 2026 meeting times
Jan 12, at 18:00 UTC
Feb 09, at 18:00 UTC
Mar 09, at 18:00 UTC (US switch Mar 8, Europe switch Mar 29) (11am PDT/2pm EDT for US attendees)
Apr 20, at 17:00 UTC
May 11, at 17:00 UTC
Jun 08, at 17:00 UTC
Jul 13, at 17:00 UTC
Aug 17, at 17:00 UTC
Sep 14, at 17:00 UTC
Oct 19, at 17:00 UTC
Nov 16, at 18:00 UTC (same as normal hours for everyone)
Dec 14, at 18:00 UTC
Meeting adjourned 58 minutes after start.