Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2026-04-13
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
13 April 2026, 18:00 UTC
Participants
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Dermot McNally
- Tom Lee
- Tom Hummel (joined 22 min after start)
Absent
- Simon Hughes
Administrative
Adoption of past minutes
- 2026-03-09 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
hotelmap.com
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Dear LWG,
We sent this notice to Hotelmap.com a couple of weeks ago. We got no notice from them. I see this case as specifically problematic, as Hotelmap.com is deliberately changing Mapbox's attribution to hide OSM and add their own. I noticed the issue, as it's the official booking site for the Geospatial World Forum. How should we proceed with it? Can we send a more direct message? Best, Dear team at Hotelmap.com, We have noticed you are using OpenStreetMap-based tiles for the map background. Based on your page, it appears you are using Mapbox (I have checked this page https://hotelmap.com/MG968). However, using OSM data through a third party still requires citing the source of the map style and map data. We have noticed that this attribution is not present in Hotelmap.com. Mapbox provides guidance on its website (https://docs.mapbox.com/help/dive-deeper/attribution/) on how to attribute a map using its libraries and styles, including OSM-based ones. In addition, OpenStreetMap has a copyright page with more information on how to cite OSM data-based maps: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. If you require any clarification, we would be happy to assist. Héctor Ochoa Ortiz¹ |
No update. Tom Lee has emailed Hotelmap.com on 2026-03-06, as they were a Mapbox customer, but has not heard back. The email address Mapbox has on file seems a group email address, associated with their software developers.
No apps seems associated with hotelmap.com, which could be used as leverage.
Action item
Tom Lee to reach out again to hotelmap.com
Redacted topic 80402
New topic. Minutes not published after request by the LWG.
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. Previous action item: Kathleen to provide copy of analysis to Google.' Done on 25 January 2026. Dermot had replied to the original correspondent asking for additional examples of problematic data. Dermot tried to find Dopper's contact information - they have not responded to his message via their webform. Previous action items
Google seems to have removed Dopper as a source | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=65356 |
No update from Dermot.
EVRI delivery company using OSM without attribution? - Ticket#2026010610000189
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| is this substantial or not
(Screenshot attached) Their main map is missing attribution: https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop/#/ They are using these service: https://www.vectorine.com/ Previous action item: Tom Lee to reach out to Vectorine regarding compliance to ODbL, and if that doesn’t work, to Evri. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=77004 |
Tom mentioned that the last communication was on March 31st.
Tom contacted the consultancy, who claimed that there is another service in between them and EVRI.Received word that EVRI acknowledged need for attribution
Related also to Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop – attribution problems in multiple places.
Action item
Tom Lee to send an update.
OpenMediaMap via legal@
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| 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 Previous action item: Kathleen to message them re trademark, homepage tile image, and attribution sent Feb 9:
Dear hmaharoof, Hello, March 9 |
OpenMediaMap has been renamed to GeoArchive https://geoarchive.org/
LinkMyRide using OSM in App without attribution
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| OpenStreetMap Ireland (local chapter) wishes to escalate this matter to LWG after sustained ignoring of many approaches by app creators. Seeks LWG approval for:
1. Dermot, in name of LWG, to approach app creators, reiterate complaint, demand assurances on provision of correct attribution and threaten to seek removal of their app from app stores on grounds of copyright infringement in the absence of this remediation. 2. If no resolution, proceed with formal process to request app store removal Back story: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution First spotted: 15th May 2025 by Anne, OSM Ireland Board 16th May: CEO of LinkMyRide claimed "We actually get our map data from Mapbox". Immediate reply sent to clarify actual data ownership and requirements. > Quickly responded to by LMR: "Ok! I wasn't aware of that! We are in the process of releasing a large update at the end of June. So I will make sure our tech team get that attribution added." Early July - email sent, no reply after 2 weeks Jan: email sent, no reply Early Feb: <screenshot> > LinkedIn request to connect was ignored. The view in OSM Ireland is that they are at worst willfully ignoring us, and at best, very lax. This is why we feel that the leverage of app distribution may be needed to ensure some focus. 2026-03 action item: Tom Lee to reach out with Mapbox (and also connect with Dermot). |
LinkMyRide is/was a Mapbox customer.
Dermot took the information provided by Tom Lee (Mapbox) to OpenStreetMap Ireland. OSM Ireland will consider the issue closed for now and will keep an eye for the future.
LinkMyRide will update when they are next able to update - last app update was almost a year ago.
Smart data models
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| 1) Maybe you know that I am the responsible person for the smart data models. This is an open source initiative to release data models based on actual use cases. We have more than 1000 data models on 13 different industrial domains, smart cities, energy, environment, mobility, etc.
2) One use case is creating an adaptation of the objects in the OSM to be used with FIWARE platform and for doing this, they are creating a derivative work of the objects inside the OSM. Not from the graph part but from the data part. The question is: - I see that for providing attribution I need to either include this text: "This data model is a derivative work based on the OpenStreetMap Wiki, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 by OpenStreetMap contributors." but also to say that this has to be licensed under ODbL I want to do it right. What is the right way of doing?. You can see the models as a draft here in the incubated repository:
https://github.com/smart-data-models/incubated/tree/master/dataModel.OpenStreetMap |
> "This data model is a derivative work based on the OpenStreetMap Wiki, licensed under CCBY-SA 2.0 by OpenStreetMap contributors.">
Tom Hummel joined approximately 29 minutes after start.
GitHub repository
The GitHub repository contains actual OSM data. Dermot found a JSON under "Open OSM Traffic Sign Examples" and it includes OSM ID, name, stop sign, traffic_sign=stop, coordinates.
Attribution
- You can systematically get subsets of OSM data, so it is ODbL attribution.
- Geocoding guidance: the model needs to disclose the licence, that it is based on OSM, and if you are a router or geocoder, you have the attribution obligations there. Individual pieces of data are insubstantial, unless there is a systematic attempt to combine them.
LWG stance: This is a derivative database - so it's under ODbL.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Intend and usecase of project unclear.
- Many themes are close to top-level OSM tagging schemas, which have probably been identified as interesting.
- Seems like a way of querying selected items based on criteria - unclear how to query.
- Seems as an effort to ingest all of the world's data into a single model - which has probably been done before.
- Might be AI generated.
Action item
Kathleen to reply that this is derivative work under ODbL, please note ODbL, not CC-BY-SA 2.0 (old license). Done April 13.
Any other business
Quebec Ministry of Tourism: Permission to use their datasets - Ticket#2026031010000426
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Dear OpenStreetMap Foundation Licensing Working Group,
I would like to submit a permission received from the Québec Ministry of Tourism (Ministère du Tourisme du Québec), a provincial government agency in Québec, Canada, allowing the use of their datasets in OpenStreetMap. These tourism-related datasets (e.g., locations of outfitter establishments and other tourism infrastructure) are published on the Données Québec open data portal: https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset?organization=ministere-du-tourisme After an exchange with the Ministry's digital information team to explain OpenStreetMap's licensing and attribution model, they issued the attached signed authorization confirming compatibility with the ODbL licence.'The letter confirms that: 1. Attribution via the OpenStreetMap Contributors page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors) satisfies the attribution requirement of CC BY 4.0. 2. The Ministry waives section 2(a)(5)(B) of CC BY 4.0 with respect to OpenStreetMap and its users. The authorization applies to datasets published by the Ministère du Tourisme du Québec on the Données Québec portal. Could this permission please be reviewed and, if acceptable, added to the Contributors page under Canada? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Canada |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=79809 |
Looks good,
Action items
- Kathleen to add them to the list of approved Canadian licences.
- Dorothea to file the signed document, if there is an appropriate place. Uploaded to https://files.osmfoundation.org/s/iXbgz66GL8y8Sfd and also filed on the board wiki.
Kathleen replied April 13.
Saudi Arabia - Riyadh bus stops dataset under the Saudi Open Data License - Ticket#2026033110000628
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| I'm mapping bus stops in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and found an official dataset:
The dataset appears to be published under the Saudi Open Data License: English: https://open.data.gov.sa/odp-public/static/en/assets/Open_Data_License_En.pdf Arabic: https://open.data.gov.sa/odp-public/static/ar/assets/Open_Data_License_Ar.pdf [Can't open off Saudi IPs, Tom saved to https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1htAGp9_6JrWZsp4J-QMEPxySvkfiM55X] I have asked the local OpenStreetMap community in Saudi Arabia, they believe the license may be compatible with ODbL, however there is no confirmed answer. I would like to ask whether this license is compatible with the ODbL for importing data into OSM. For now, I'm only using the dataset as a field reference and verifying stops on the ground. |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=81228 |
They seem to have translated ODbL into Arabic, renumbered it, and then translated it back.
LWG stance: The licence looks fine.
On mention of compulsory license schemes
- There are not that many jurisdictions with compulsory licensing schemes that cover databases.
- Governments wouldn't provide their data as open data sets, if they were intending to be collecting under a compulsory licensing scheme.
- ODbL can be used for any kind of data or file types, which could include things that are more commonly subject to compulsory licensing schemes, like music.
- It seems like a catch-all for weird edge cases.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- It is impressive that they decided that ODbL was the correct template for the Saudi Arabia governmental dataset.
Action item
Kathleen to reply that this license is fine. Done April 13.
Dorothea added the files from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1htAGp9_6JrWZsp4J-QMEPxySvkfiM55X?usp=sharing to the LWG folder at https://files.osmfoundation.org/s/K9TGYJc4YXzHSo6
South Korea - dataset from the Korean Public Data Portal
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| The dataset is available via the Korean Public Data Portal: https://www.data.go.kr/en/index.do
Here is the specific dataset page: https://www.data.go.kr/en/data/15097605/openapi.do |
Korean pages for the data: https://www.data.go.kr//data/15097605/openapi.do https://www.data.go.kr/ugs/selectPortalPolicyView.do
Issue: unclear what the licence is.
- Dataset page -> link for licence. English translation says "limitless", which sounds good, but is not one of the licence types listed.
- It is probably a weird translation.
- Type0 licence: seems like the licence which "limitless" implies, but there is no terminology overlap.
- https://www.data.go.kr//data/15097605/openapi.do seems to be the Korean page for this data.
Suggestions
- LWG to try a machine translation of all the data types and https://www.data.go.kr//data/15097605/openapi.do
- LWG to contact the Korean mapper regarding clarifications about the licence, as even with machine translations, there is room for nuance.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Everything points to a licence with maximum openness.
- The English translations are not consistent in the wording.
https://www.data.go.kr/catalog/15097605/openapi.json
Action item
Kathleen to write back to request confirmation that 이용허락범위 제한 없음 means [제0유형]. Done April 13.
To trademarks
Brazil - UMBRAOSM - Ticket#2025102110000359
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| They still lead to misunderstandings, as they form a group from Brazil whose candidacy was REJECTED by the LCCWG.
"New CNEFE Tool Revolutionizes Street Name Correction in OpenStreetMap Brasil" https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/raphaelmirc/diary/408262 "Nova Ferramenta CNEFE Revoluciona a Correção de Nomes de Ruas no OpenStreetMap Brasil" https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/raphaelmirc/diary/408261 Umbraosm DOES NOT REPRESENT the OSM Brazil community; please, I ask that you intervene to ensure they do not use that term, as it leads to misunderstandings. How can we resolve it? Thank you in advance, |
| LWG internal reference: https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=73915 |
Issues about who properly represents the Brazilian community might be properly resolved by the Local Chapters and Communities Working Group (LCCWG).
- They are a group of volunteer mappers that gets together for OSM activities, so it's fine for them to include a reference OSM in their group.
- Objection seems to be that the name encompasses all OSM mappers in Brazil.
- The LCCWG could decide that nobody in Brazil is confused about the UMBRAOSM name, or bounce the issue back to the LWG regarding the trademark.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- There seems to be some history about UMBRAOSM.
Action item
Kathleen to forward to LCCWG. Done April 13.
Datactivist cooperative documentation about OSM - via legal@
| Email shared by the LWG |
|---|
| Dear OpenStreetMap Foundation, Datactivist cooperative is planning to publicly release documentation about OpenStreetMap on its website https://open.datactivist.coop. Datactivist is a regular member of French federation of OpenStreetMap professionals that has been granted to use the OpenStreetMap trademark until 2027. |
Seems fine.
On attribution
- they are very vigorous, but they are missing the copyright symbol.
- The updated attribution guidelines say that the copyright symbol is not mandatory.
- They have a link on page 6, according to the slides they sent to the LWG.
Other points mentioned during discussion
- It doesn't seem to be a physical publication.
- The trademark policy mentions publications, as well as publications that are not nominative for referential use.
Their use case seems to fall under the existing guidance and they don't need an additional trademark agreement. They are not promoting other things.
Action item
Kathleen to write back that it’s fine. Done April 13.
2026 LWG 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 60 minutes after start.