OpenStreetMap Foundation

Licensing Working Group

  Tuesday 19th February 2013

19:00 - 19:55 UTC

Agenda & Minutes


Present:  Simon Poole, Oliver Kühn, Richard Weait, Michael Collinson

Apologies: Dermot

Minutes by: Michael

1. Adoption of Minutes of last meeting

Note: This minute link is for LWG members only. A read-only version is normally available at

Proposed: Richard

Seconded: Simon



2. MATTERS ARISING (open action items from previous meetings)

  • Richard will put the word out for new volunteers via CWG. 
  • Mike to publicly document exactly how we respond to a take-down request.
  • Mike to ask legal counsel about the ramifications of publicly documenting the notice themselves immediately or after a certain time, such as 90 days.
  • Mike to contact Henk re Apple situation

3. Finalise today's agenda

4. DMCA take-down procedure

  • Formalising procedure within OSMF / Public documentation

Following feedback from the board,  LWG will expand its initiative to produce public documentation describing what happens after a take-down notice is received to formally documenting the process for presentation to the board. This will act as an ISO 9000-like process whereby areas of risk can be pinpointed.

The following is a link to a draft document for editing by LWG and DWG members. It will be made public once some legal clarification is made on a couple of areas:

5 LWG 2013

Draft role overview and budget sections added: (edit copy for LWG members)  (publicly visible)

6 ODbl-Compatible Licenses

A question from a German government agency: How is a compatible license decided? Who decides it?

ODbL 1.0 states:

4.4 Share alike.

          a. Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only under the terms of:

               i. This License;

               ii. A later version of this License similar in spirit to this License; or

               iii. A compatible license.

If You license the Derivative Database under one of the licenses mentioned in (iii), You must comply with the terms of that license.

Note that ODbL also states:

“[4.4] d. Share Alike and additional Contents. For the avoidance of doubt, You must not add Contents to Derivative Databases under Section 4.4 a that are incompatible with the rights granted under this License.

e. Compatible licenses. Licensors may authorise a proxy to determine compatible licenses under Section 4.4 a iii. If they do so, the authorised proxy’s public statement of acceptance of a compatible license grants You permission to use the compatible license.

LWG will ask OKF/OpenDataCommons opinion.

7 Dynamic Data

Simple example:  The capacity of a car-park is static (or at least non-realtime) data. The number of cars parked in it at any one time is dynamic data, it is not of interest to OSM ... can it be formally exempted from Share Alike?

We look at creating a new Community Norm. This will need evolving with OSM community.

We also need to the address the issue of Community Norms changing in the future.  Where does that leave users of data? They can probably continue to use data pulled from the OSM database before the change is made, (grandfathering), but should we also lessen their risk by adding a sunset statement, (“and you may continue using data for two years”)?

8. AOB

“Report on the International Expert Meeting on Crowdsource Mapping for Disaster Risk Management and Emergency Response carried out in the framework of the United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER) December 2012” now available at

Sharing of data and licensing was a major concern and paras 50-54 deal directly with it. (Michael Collinson attended the 3rd - 5th December 2012 session as did Kate Chapman of HOT).

Next Meeting:

Next meeting: Tuesday March 5th at 19:00 GMT/UTC

Members of the OSM community are welcome to join us ... send an email to legal at .