Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2026-02-09
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
9 February 2026, 18:00 UTC
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
Absent
- Simon Hughes
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2026-01-12 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
Any update?
OpenCollabMap query
It is the board's decision whether they want to approve an exception for OpenCollabMap to the standard trademark policy.
Queries to legal-questions
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. Dermot had replied to the original correspendent asking for additional examples of problematic data. The original sender:
We haven't received a reply from Dopper - Dermot had contacted them via their online form. Previous action item: Kathleen to provide copy of analysis to Google.' Done on 25 January 2026. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=65356 |
Dermot tried to find Dopper's contact information - they have not responded to his message via their webform.
Contact information
Dopper B.V.
Gonnetstraat 26
2011 KA, Haarlem
The Netherlands
+31 (0)23 2049900
Dopper's registration
Dopper Netherlands
Chamber of Commerce number: 57084556
VAT number: NL-852431466B01
Email addresses
- service@dopper.nl
- info@dopper.nl
Dermot might have emailed service@dopper.nl or infor@dopper.nl and got redirected to the webform. Will check.
Dopper CEO: Virginia Yanquilevich
https://www.linkedin.com/in/virginiayanquilevich/
Suggestions
- OSMF to hire an attorney in Netherlands to write a formal letter to Dopper. We could send it to their official address and copies via electronic means.
- Find contact information for their legal department or CEO.
- We can try privacy@ and legal@
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Privacy policy: https://www.dopper.com/legal/privacy-policy
Action items
- Demot to find email addresses for their legal department or CEO.
- The LWG to ask the Board to authorise them to act on Dopper not abiding with the ODbL. An attorney from the Netherlands must be found.
- Kathleen to ask Lawdit for a firm in Netherlands.
EVRI delivery company using OSM without attribution? - Ticket#2026010610000189
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| is this substantial or not
(Screenshot attached) |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=77004 |
A mapper had a parcel delivered in the UK, and the email to them from the UK delivery company 'EVRI' contained an OSM static image, without attributing OSM. The mapper contacted the LWG and provided a screenshot of the small map in the email. Not shared here due to privacy reasons (home address).
- It is unclear what happens when the person clicks on that small map.
- Each individual is likely to encounter other instances of the map from the same parcel service.
Issue: Main map at https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop/#/ lacks attribution to OpenStreetMap.
- Map data: OSM map
- Map tiles: Provided by vectorine.com.
On Vectorine
- Their website mentions "We are a geo service consultancy with a focus on OpenStreetMap".
- Seems to be a one-person business, that offeers self-served map tiles and custom work.
- The owner has OSM attribution on his maps, but he doesn't seem to provide any public instructions about attribution to his customers.
https://www.vectorine.com/impressum
> Thomas Skowron Barbarastr. 29 50354 Hürth Germany
> E-Mail: support@vectorine.com
> VAT ID: DE321720437
On whether to contact EVRI and/or Vectorine
- It might be inappropriate to reach out to Vectorine, as EVRI could have procured an automated account and pointed to Vectorine's servers. We might also be disclosing things that are not the business of Vectorine to know.
- It might be better to contact Vectorine directly, instead of them getting an email from an angry and confused customer.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- They are aware that OSM exists.
- It is a really unproductive dynamic in the community sometimes where people don't take reasonably calculated to mean what map applications and users commonly do.
Action item
Tom Lee to reach out to Vectorine regarding compliance to ODbL, and if that doesn’t work, to Evri.
GRAB and OSM attribution - Ticket#2026011810000246
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Hello, does OSM aware that GRAB is using open street map in South East Asia to manipulate drivers and riders in e-hailing and food delivery? Im not sure whether the screenshot below fulfill the term: provide credit to OSM by displaying our attribution notice, because in grab app, Open Street Map becomes GrabMaps. You guys are aiding grab to squeeze drivers and riders by giving them the map monopoly power where fares are not transparent and up-to-grab, without the transparency for driver and rider. I hope OSM stop grab from using OSM as they are not crediting OSM team in obvious way but taking every credit as their trophy. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=77501 |
Complaint: There is no attribution to OSM in Grab's app, while there is space. but they have added "GrabMaps".
Grab
- Is by far the biggest OSM presence in Southeast Asia.
- Employs many mappers.
- Is an OSMF Corporate Member.
Steve Coast seems to be Grab's Head of Engineering, related to Geospatial. Information provided by Dermot, based on a podcast.
On approach of having attribution behind an info button on mobiles
- Controversial.
- Followed by other companies, such as Mapbox.
- Many community members strongly dislike the practice.
On the suggestions to ask the person what happens when they click the info button and get a confirmation
- They have probably tried it and feel that it is still not compliant.
- We would be committing ourselves to taking a position to say:
- that we are ill-equipped to pursue this troublesome edge case.
- that in the absence of a strong community mandate to lean harder, it's not what we actively pursue.
- It is the person's right to appeal to the board.
- It's above the LWG's paygrade to solve the issue.
- Responding is the courteous thing to do.
- Not responding is also a position.
Link shared: https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/blob/master/Grab%20Data%20Team.md
Other points mentioned during discussion
- The person thinks that that Grab's business model is bad.
- Forgetting the attribution has happened even with well-meaning companies, if developers forget or due to bugs.
- The attribution guideline provides a safe Harbor
- Mapbox strongly believes that that they are compliant with the ODbL license.
Action item
Kathleen to ask the mapper what happens when you click on the (i). Sent on February 9. No reply as of March 9, 2026.
Canada: Open Government License for AMDSP (Alberta, Canada) - Ticket#2026020810000085
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Open Government License Approval for AMDSP (Alberta, Canada)
My name is Eric and I am an OSM contributor from Alberta, Canada. I have recently discovered that the organization known as the Alberta Municipal Data Sharing Partnership (AMDSP) has made their data available under an OGL which appears to be OSM compatible, but is distinct from the already-approved Government of Alberta OGL (which does not include municipal-level data). Per the instructions on the OSMF Canada Licenses wiki page, I ran a diff between the "Open Government Licence – Alberta Municipal Data Sharing Partnership (AMDSP)" and the Ottawa Open Data License and found no differences aside from references to the name of the locality being changed to "Alberta". I would appreciate if the LWG could review this resource and have it approved for use in OSM. The Data License can be viewed here, at the access to the AMDSP data download portal: https://amos.amdsp.ca/Views/publicdownload.html Please advise if or when this license becomes approved. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=78303 |
Alberta Municipal Data Sharing Partnership is different from the Government of Alberta OGL.
Decision: Licence approved
Action item
Kathleen to write back that the Alberta Municipal Data Sharing Partnership licence was approved. Done on March 6, 2026.
OpenMediaMap
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| via legal@: Just in case nobody has pointed this out https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hmaharoof/diary/408171. On the site it claims that the name is trademarked fwiw and doesn't bother with any attribution of OSM.
Cheers |
Simon has commented on the OSM diary entry.
- Map data: OSM
- Map tiles source: OSMF tiles
- OSM attribution: No attribution
The map has hardcoded Baltimore's location and has an "open full map" link. As the map is not dynamic, it doesn't make sense to hit the tiles and not use a static image.
https://openmediamap.com/map.html (Full map)
- Map data: OSM
- Map tiles source: OSMF tiles
- OSM attribution: Yes
Suggestions
- Wait to see the reaction's to Simon's comment on the diary entry https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hmaharoof/diary/408171
- Message https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/hmaharoo and say: it is a cool idea and inform them that we discourage naming projects this way. Use of the trademark symbol is concerning. Additionally, that we noticed that the homepage dynamically polling OSMF tiles when it loads, which is inefficient and there is not attribution to OSM visible. We'll suggest to switch to a static image on the main page https://openmediamap.com/ with attribution.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Using the OSMF tiles for this project is not currently problematic.
Action item
Kathleen to message them re trademark, homepage tile image, and attribution.
Email sent on February 9:
Dear hmaharoof,
We at LWG (the OSMF Legal/Licensing Working Group) recently learned about your new project OpenMediaMap. It looks very interesting.
However, we do feel obliged to point out that, apart from some legacy projects that pre-date the policy, the https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy discourages use of the "Open___Map" naming structure for individual projects due to the potential risk of confusion as to a project's official status, especially as project grow and become more popular. In particular, the use of the TM trademark symbol is concerning as to the project's intentions.
Since the project is just launch, we strongly encourage you to pick a unique name other than the Open___Map format.
Additionally, we noticed when looking at your homepage that the map on the homepage appears to be a hardcoded tile location. This is a rather inefficient use of the map tiles, and the standard map attribution is also cut off by the frame. Given that the map doesn't pan/zoom until one clicks into the main map, we would suggest that a static map image with attribution in the corner would be better for the homepage.
We do not want to discourage you from pursuing your project, but we hope that you are open to these adjustments.
Thank you,
Kathleen Lu
Chair, on behalf of the OSMF Legal/Licensing Working Group
2026 LWG meeting times
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 50 minutes after start.