Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2026-01-12
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
12 January 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
- 2025-12-08 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?
Administrative items
- Craig Allan is the board's new LWG liaison. Mauizio Napolitano is the backup liaison.
- New osmvideo room for LWG meetings.
Board items
OSMF move to the EU – Reply to Bird&Bird
Can someone on the Board please respond to Emily Patel? If the Board has decided not to meet with her, it is very rude to leave her hanging.
By Craig: The board has discussed the topic and found that the price of the proposed initial meeting was too high. The board is looking for lower cost firms. The Secretary should have replied and Craig will send to the Secretary a reminder.
Two topics redacted
Discussion for 8 minutes in total. Topics and minutes will not be published, as decided by the LWG.
Update on French Cadastre (PCI-NG) project, after board meeting
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Previous email:
Thank you very much for your response.I completely understand that we cannot use a name based on OpenStreetMap. As an alternative, following the model of OpenHistoricalMap, would the name OpenCadastralMap be acceptable to you ?Regarding the MPL license, it applies only to the code. Our intention is to release solely the source code as open source. The French cadastral data themselves are largely available as open data on the French government’s data portal (data.gouv.fr).Thank you also sincerely for the invitation on January 9, which we gladly accept. During our presentation we will give an overview of the PCI‑NG project, explain why we initiated this application‑refactoring effort, outline the challenges and constraints specific to the French cadastral system, describe our decision to leverage OSM components, and detail the adaptations we are introducing (collaborative editing). Does this agenda meet your expectations? Please let us know if you would like us to add any additional topics or details.For your information, we gave a brief presentation of the PCI‑NG project and our choice of OSM components at the most recent OGC iDays in Frankfurt, specifically in Bad Nauheim.I wish you a pleasant remainder of the day and wonderful holiday celebrations. |
| Post-meeting note: Related board discussion 2026-02. |
The French Cadastre has emailed OSMF about the proposed licence for their new OSM-related project and about the proposed project's name.
On the proposed project's name They currently propose "OpenCollabMap". The LWG cautioned that their suggested name was not a good idea, because we don't want to suggest an affiliation with OSM. They asked if they can use an alternative name including "Open" and "Map" as components. The LWG generally discourages such use, though some exceptions exist. Exceptions to the Trademark policy are typically made by the board.
There is no board decision at the moment.
A meeting of the French Cadastre with the board had been proposed in the email discussion. This was changed to a presentation of the French Cadastre during the public EWG meeting on the 23 January 2026.
Proposal for updating the privacy policy
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| I just noticed that your Privacy Policy still refers to GMail as mailprovider for osm.
This does not seem correct anymore. Kindly consider rewording. My check shows that you are with mailbox.org now. dig osmfoundation.org mx ; <<>> DiG 9.18.39-0ubuntu0.22.04.2-Ubuntu <<>> osmfoundation.org mx ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 1015 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 65494 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;osmfoundation.org. IN MX ;; ANSWER SECTION: osmfoundation.org. 300 IN MX 10 mxext1.mailbox.org. osmfoundation.org. 300 IN MX 20 mxext3.mailbox.org. osmfoundation.org. 300 IN MX 10 mxext2.mailbox.org. https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy This is the exact spot: Communication via OSMF provided Systems These 3rd party operated systems are:
Per OWG: Update to say: Communication via OSMF provided Systems These 3rd party operated systems are: OSMF email lists (email addresses ending in @osmfoundation.org) are provided by mailbox.org, but email sent to these lists are forwarded to the personal inboxes of list members, which may use any email provider of the member’s choice (for example, Gmail, Outlook, etc.). |
Kathleen had an email exchange with the OWG about this topic. OSMF's email provider is currently Mailbox.org and not Gmail - however the emails from @osmfoundation.org mailing lists are forwarded to individual's email addresses, which may include Gmail. The Privacy policy's change is under the LWG's remit.
Action item
Kathleen to update the Privacy Policy. Done on 25 January 2026.
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. Kathleen emailed Eric Dickinson (product counsel for Google Maps), who replied that he would look into it. Previous action item: Dermot to check with original mapper on providing additional examples, if possible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=65356 |
Dermot had replied to the original correspendent asking for additional examples of problematic data.
The original sender:
- provided around 98 locations that were identical (or within submeter precision) on Gmaps and OSM.
- provided the reasons why the locations might not be identical matches, e.g. due to the community shifting the positions after they had been imported to Gmaps, or due to the precision of the import process.
- noted that the locations with greater correlations between OSM and Google were in rural areas, which are less well mapped with Google Street View cars, or might be related to the fact that people tend to contribute data mostly in urban environments.
We haven't received a reply from Dopper - Dermot had contacted them via their online form.
Action item
Kathleen to provide copy of analysis to Google. Done on 25 January 2026.
Copyright violation: critical drinking water infrastructure data of Farys - Ticket#2025101410000158
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Previous complaint response:
thank you for writing to Data Working Group and I am sorry to hear that our web site is causing you a headache. We all depend on a functioning water supply and we have the highest respect for the work you do. However, at OpenStreetMap, we firmly believe in open data, and in citizen's rights to know what is near them (or over, or under them). If information about your pipelines has found its way into OSM through legal means (e.g. by someone witnessing construction, or surveying overground markers, or simply having worked on such a pipeline and sharing their knowledge), then we cannot delete it; that would be against our own rules. Something that can be observed, can also be added to OSM. If however it turns out that data in OSM has been added from a copyrighted source, then we will of course respect that copyright and remove the data. I have reached out to the mapper in question to clarify the situation. Some of the water pipelines have been in OSM for many years though - e.g. the "903" pipeline here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/840298780/history/1 I will let you know how this develops. —- Thank you for taking this issue seriously. The information of the Farys drinking water infrastructure available on https://openinframap.org/ is of such a detail that it can not be obtained through public sources nor observations. Please note that some of the information made available through your platform is considered critical and falls under national security regulations. I urge you to investigate the possibilities to remove this confidential information. You can reach out to the team to enquire which infrastructure or users are violating the copyright and/or national security legislation. |
| LWG internal reference: Ticket#2025101410000158 |
Two claims:
- It is irresponsible to include this information in the map.
- Assertion that the information about the Farys drinking water infrastructure is not publicly available.
The DWG had reached out to the mapper who added that information.
Kathleen has asked the DWG for an update on the situation.
Post meeting note
Frederik Ramm (DWG) replied on 14 January 2026, with mapper’s evidence of independent mapping.
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 LWG does not have a copy of the community member's communications.
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. LWG note: www.deepimmo.de doesn’t seem to open? |
Kathleen asked for more info on 9 December 2025.
Canada Open Government License - City of Prince George
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Dear Licensing Working Group,
I am writing to request a review of the "Open Government License - City of Prince George" for compatibility with OpenStreetMap. I would like to import city map data for Prince George, British Columbia. Currently, the OSM Canada Wiki lists this source as "Not accepted for import into OSM due to name being different." Upon review of the license, it states that it is a direct copy of the already-approved Open Government License – British Columbia (OGL-BC), with the only changes being the entity name. “This license is based on version 2.0 of the Open Government License – British Columbia which was developed through public consultation and a collaborative effort by provincial and federal government. The only substantive changes in this license are to replace direct references to the Province of British Columbia with the City of Prince George. You are encouraged to use the Information that is available under this license with only a few conditions.” Comparison for Review:
Since OGL-BC v2.0 is on the list of compatible licenses, and this document legally affirms it contains no other substantive changes, I request that the City of Prince George license be added to the compatible list or treated as a compatible alias. Thank you, |
The Open Government License - City of Prince George seems fine.
Action item
Kathleen to tell mapper that the wiki notation is out of date (2019) and the Canada Open Government License - City of Prince George is fine. Done on 24 January 2026.
Tanzania - Import of shapefiles from the United Republic of Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| To Legal@ re Tanzania:
The United Republic of Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics has shapefiles (https://www.nbs.go.tz/statistics/topic/gis) that, if imported, would allow OSM to map admin boundaries down to Ward/Shehia level (OSM currently only goes down to the broad District level). The data appear to fall under https://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/references/Licence-Agreement-NBS.pdf. Dorothea's note: Archive.org link of the licence. Would it be suitable to ask for a waiver so that data can get added to OSM? My query comes as a Wikipedia/Wikidata editor trying to fulfil a mapping request. |
Assessment: The licence looks fine.
On downstream use
Attribution is required, but it is not stated that it has to be at a particular place. As long as someone attributes OSM correctly, the attribution chain is ok.
Other points mentioned during discussion
This seems to be a national-level source. Traditionally, country level attributions are added to the main page of osm.org/copyright, when they are from national geo-sources.
Action item
Kathleen to write back that this license is acceptable. The attribution data should be added to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Tanzania and a PR should be made to add the attribuiton to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright since this is a national level source. Done on 24 January 2026.
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 1 hour and 2 minutes after start.