Korea Open Government License

This article's factual accuracy is disputed.

For more recent updates or for more information, please see the Korean page.

The Korea Open Government License(KOGL) is a public copyright license established by the government of the Republic of Korea.

KOGL’s Purpose and Rights Framework

The Korea Open Government License(KOGL) allows the public to freely use government-owned works without copyright issues; however, it is difficult to use in OpenStreetMap because it is either incompatible with international licenses or its compatibility is unclear.

Compatibility between KOGL and ODbL

There are four types (Types 1 to 4) of the Korea Open Government License (KOGL), and some of them are not compatible with the ODbL.
To contribute data to or utilize data from the OSM project, the license must be compatible with the ODbL, and the Share-Alike provision must be applicable without conflicts.

Compatibility Table between KOGL and ODbL
KOGL Types Usage Conditions Compatibility with ODbL Attachment
Type 1 Attribution Only (BY) ⚠️ Compatible[1] ODbL also requires attribution. Most permissive.
Type 2 Attribution + Non-Commercial (BY-NC) ❌ Not Compatible ODbL requires permission for commercial use.
Type 3 Attribution + No Derivatives (BY-ND) ❌ Not Compatible ODbL requires permission for modifications and derivatives.
Type 4 Attribution + Non-Commercial + No Derivatives (BY-NC-ND) ❌ Not Compatible Most restrictive. Completely incompatible with ODbL.
Expired Public Works None ✅ Compatible

To be compatible with ODbL:

  • Commercial use must be allowed
  • Modification and creation of derivative data must be permitted
  • Share-Alike under the same conditions must be possible
  • Attribution requirements are acceptable (ODbL also includes attribution)

Therefore, in terms of conditions, only KOGL Type 1 is license-compatible with ODbL. (However, due to unclear requirements and OSM's conservative licensing policy, it is practically unusable.)

Summary of the key reasons why data cannot be used in OSM without explicit permission
Reason Explanation
Relicensing Issue When data is contributed to OSM, it is redistributed under the ODbL, so the original work's license must explicitly permit this relicensing. KOGL Type 1 does not explicitly provide for this.
Unclear Nature of the Work Even if KOGL applies to some public works, there may be secondary copyright holders (such as contracted producers), which raises legal liability issues.
Ambiguity in Applicability Even if an institution labels a work as "KOGL Type 1," it is often unclear whether the license actually applies to the entire dataset.
Conservative Policy of the OSM Foundation To avoid legal disputes, the OSM Foundation prioritizes explicit permission over implied consent. This is especially strict for data from government agencies.
Comparison of the Legal Structures of KOGL Type 1 and ODbL
Item KOGL Type 1 ODbL
Attribution Required Required
Modification Allowed Allowed Allowed
Commercial Use Allowed Allowed
License Change/Redistribution Unclear (No indication) Automatically converted to ODbL (upon public contribution)

The final item, "Permission for License Change" is the most critical point of conflict.
Since KOGL Type 1 does not explicitly allow conversion (relicensing) to ODbL, it cannot be used in OSM without explicit consent.

Example Cases
Case KOGL Type Usability Attachment
Cultural Heritage Administration API Type 1 ❌ Not Usable Many works are subcontracted by item, and the data creators are mixed.
Seoul City Traffic Information Open API Type 1 ⚠️ Uncertain Some are Type 1, but the data practically contains restrictive conditions.

Even if it is under Korea Open Government License Type 1,
the specific details of the 'indicate the source' condition are unclear,

The source indication details are unclear.
The source indication details are unclear.


it is not certain whether relicensing under the ODbL is permitted,
and in many cases, the data creator or copyright holder is unknown.
Therefore, the OpenStreetMap Foundation requires explicit permission from the institution.

See also

Reference

  1. However, compatibility with the attribution details is unclear and ambiguous, leaving room for disputes. While the license condition simply states "attribution," it appears—based on the example cases—that this "attribution" may actually involve multiple elements beyond just a simple citation.