Jump to content

Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2026-05-11

From OpenStreetMap Foundation

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
11 May 2026, 18:00 UTC

Participants

  • Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
  • Dermot McNally
  • Tom Lee

Absent

  • Simon Hughes

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi.


Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Reports in OTRS:


Board items

hotelmap.com

Hotelmap.com was brought to LWG's attention by Héctor Ochoa Ortiz (OSMF board member). During a conference, he noticed that the hotels.com has an OSM-based map without attribution. Tom Lee forwarded the email to legal@hotels.com. No reply as of today.

Mapbox has fixed their report attribution form, and is now receiving reports about missing attribution.

Action item

Tom Lee to follow up again.


Queries to legal-questions

Large copyright infringement (Dopper - water taps) - Ticket#2025040310000645

Google seems to have removed Dopper as a source.

Dermot to follow up with Dopper regarding sharealike of non-OSM water tap sources listed on Dopper’s map.

Dermot sent emails to several potential addresses at Dopper and the CEO’s email address did not bounce.


EVRI delivery company using OSM without attribution? - Ticket#2026010610000189

Timeline:

  • Mar 31 Evri acknowledges the missing attribution issue, communicated by Tom Lee.
  • Apr 13: Tom Lee emails Evri, but does not receive a response.

Evri was not a Mapbox customer. The consultant Vectorine claims that an additional party is involved, but refuses to name them. Vectorine is probably a one-person company, providing custom map implementations.

Suggestions

  • Tom to write an escalation email to EVRI and have it sent from an OSMF email address, to give it more institutional weight.
    • Guillaume Rischard (former board member) might be able to send it.
    • Dani Waltersdorfer (OSMF Secretary) and Hector Ochoa Ortiz (OSMF Deputy Secretary) could also send the email.

On sending emails from legal@

  • Preference to send the email from legal@openstreetmap.org (group email address), but probably not possible without configuration.
  • In order for LWG members to send from legal@ it might be necessary for all LWG members to have an @osmfoundation.org email address, which will have to be paid for.
  • Suggestion: Have a single LWG member have access and reply privileges to legal@
    • That creates accountability, but also problems.

Action item

Tom Lee to draft a follow up and try to forward relevant communications to EVRI. He will send the email to Guillaume, as he has an osmfoundation.org address.


Copyright infringement of OSM data on Adobe Stock via legal@

Issue
Portfolio of around 40 map images from OSM data on Adobe Stock, missing attribution to OSM.. Issue identified by Italian mappers, who have provided a GitHub thread with a compilation of screenshots and links.

Aim
Get the portfolio owner to add OSM attribution to the images. Kathleen did not find contact information for the owner of the portfolio,in order to notify them.

Suggestion
LWG to file a DMCA report to adobe on behalf of the community, rather than having individual mappers do so . DMCA filers are required to provide a physical address, making filing unsuitable for individual community members.

On the DMCA filing process and potential response Adobe's instructions allow reporting an entire portfolio by submitting a sample set of URLs, rather than filing per image.

  • Adobe will remove the content and forward the DMCA notice to the portfolio owner, notifying them about who made the claim.
  • The portfolio owner may
    • reach out to the LWG
    • counterclaim. In that case, Adobe would put the portfolio back up. The LWG will get their contact information and could contact them about attribution or sue them.
    • give up, which is common when people receive DMCA notices. Adobe will probably not try to assess the merits of the claim and have lawyers look at it at first pass, as they are not in a position to verify the claim.

On cartography

  • The portfolio images appear to be variations of the same style,
  • This is probably not Mapbox cartography.
  • It might be the creator’s own cartographic style or Carto.

Other points mentioned

  • If the images contained attribution to OSM, the LWG would be fine with them, as they are produced works.
  • OSM probably doesn't wanna pursue the route of asserting cartography rights.
  • Kathleen Lu is a copyright expert and deals with such claims once per week.

Action item

Kathleen to file the report to Adobe.


Any other business

South Korea - dataset from the Korean Public Data Portal

Status: No update as of May 11.


Canada: Coquitlam Open Government License compatibility - Ticket#2026041110000011

The Coquitlam license was accepted, as it is essentially identical to the British OGL with the city's name substituted.

Action item

Kathleen to reply and add. Done May 11.


Canada: West Vancouver OGL2 license compatibility - Ticket#2026041710000019

The West Vancouver OGL2 license was accepted.

Action item

Kathleen to reply and add. Done May 11


dbsh.de data processing agreement request - Ticket#2026042810000374

dbsh.de

Action taken
Kathleen replied to the Data Processing agreement (DPA) enquiry, based on the feedback from Tom Hummel and Dermot McNally. The draft message was shared on LWG Signal channel.

See the [[Privacy_Policy|Privacy Policy], especially #Data_we_receive_automatically.

OSMF does not provide Data Processing agreements – they should use a service provider. E.g., Mapbox has a DPA. Personal data (PD) received through tile usage requires no consent.

Kathleen responded per Tom Hummel’s recommendation using DPA template language.


Redacted topic 81957


 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.