Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 9/18/2017 11:01 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 18.09.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Stephan Knauss: Hello Simon, On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote: Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is associated as

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 18.09.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Stephan Knauss: > Hello Simon, > > On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote: >> Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have >> not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is >> associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Hello Simon, On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote: Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with the project. My main interest is whether we actually have

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with the project. Why is using it in a domain name etc problematic: for the same reasons as using any other mark is.

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Hello Simon, On 08.09.2017 20:02, Simon Poole wrote: Further we've added a clarification to the FAQ wrt use of remixes in domain names and that use of the OpenStreetMap mark soley for attribution does not require a trademark notice. Most of us are not that fluent with trademark law, nor I am.

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

As promised we discussed the feedback so far at the LWG meeting yesterday. We've added a clause 3.3.6. that clarifies that the use in repos, libraries, software projects and so on is normally considered nominative/referential use. Further we've added a clarification to the FAQ wrt use of remixes

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 06.08.2017 um 23:21 schrieb molto...@gmail.com: > > If I'm reading the various opinions correctly, one seed for disagreement is > how much of a deterrent the requirement to ask for permission to use the > trademark actually is. Some see it as too high and want to make it unecessary > in

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Le 6 août 2017 15:55:04 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole a écrit : > > >Am 06.08.2017 um 14:20 schrieb Rory McCann: >> ... >> I suggested it only be allowed if: (i) [THING] is a noun-like word >which >> refers to something that is mapped in OSM. (ii) You are making a map >of >> that

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 06.08.2017 um 19:37 schrieb Jochen Topf: > ... > I don't understand why the "OpenSomethingMap" issue has you so spooked. I'm not spooked, it just nicely illustrates the issues, I don't think I ever even remotely commented on if OpenWeatherMap is particularly confusable with OSM, it is a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 03:55:04PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > > I suggested it only be allowed if: (i) [THING] is a noun-like word which > > refers to something that is mapped in OSM. (ii) You are making a map of > > that subset of OSM. It might be a good idea to limit it to community > > made,

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 06.08.2017 um 14:20 schrieb Rory McCann: > ... > I filed an issue asking for "Open[THING]Map" to be explicitly allowed > (with conditions): https://github.com/tieguy/OSM-collabmark.org/issues/32 Luis currently doesn't have the time to actively work on this, you should move the issue to my

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 04/08/17 15:12, Jochen Topf wrote: > * Section 2.1 forbids anything called something like "OpenThingMap". > This form of name is very popular, there are numerous existing > examples (OpenPOIMap, OpenTopoMap, OpenSeaMap, ...) Do all of these > have to change their names? I filed an issue

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 04/08/17 15:12, Jochen Topf wrote: > * Section 2.1 forbids anything called something like "OpenThingMap". > This form of name is very popular, there are numerous existing > examples (OpenPOIMap, OpenTopoMap, OpenSeaMap, ...) Do all of these > have to change their names? I filed an issue

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

2017-08-04 8:53 GMT-03:00 Matthijs Melissen : > This policy seems to protect against applications using OpenStreetMap > in the name without using OpenStreetMap data. I don't think that's a > serious problem, while the opposite 'problem' occurs quite often: > projects

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Probably it's too late for OsmAnd and it has to be grandfathered by now. I suppose Richard's question is more "how you would formulate a policy that would have permitted osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd, if said projects were to be created with the policy already in place". In other words, how

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 05.08.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Yves: > " How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not > OsmAnd, > though, I have no idea" > > > How you formulate a policy that deals with the name of established > projects, I have no idea. But should you? Maybe a far softer > grandfathering

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

" How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd, though, I have no idea" How you formulate a policy that deals with the name of established projects, I have no idea. But should you? Maybe a far softer grandfathering rule would be easier. Yves Le 5 août 2017

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Roland Olbricht wrote: > This makes clear that neither the file name extension "osm" is > jeoparday. Or you do not want to discourage people from using > "osmium", "osmosis" or a range of other software. I see your point there, but conversely I am really uncomfortable with the OsmAnd situation.

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 05.08.2017 um 09:15 schrieb Jochen Topf: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:07:47PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: >> Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of >> domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The >> policy is rather clear on what is

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:07:47PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of > domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The > policy is rather clear on what is allowed and what not, and if there are > further

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#OpenStreetMap_Trademark_Policy Can you say something about the rationale behind the split between "Community members" and "Unrelated organizations or individuals" in section 1.3? It

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Hi Simon, I appreciate that you have in the past helped to smoothen so much of the law bureaucracy that OpenStreetMap cannot avoid. > It obviously wasn't to complicated and required lawyers to register the > domain names in the first place and as the FAQ says we are only asking > for the

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Christoph There are definitely points that can be addressed and improved (always) and I already agreed that we should include one of the points you touched on in the FAQ, the problem with some of the items you raise is that they essentially boil down to no management of domain names that use

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 19:07 schrieb Simon Poole: > On 04.08.2017 18:07, Jochen Topf wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> I think it is totally unrealistic to expect hobby projects based on OSM >> to ask for permission. I see three likely outcomes: > It obviously

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Friday 04 August 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Which doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement, but calling > this a "strict" policy certainly means you haven't read a lot of > trademark policies ;) I meant 'strict' here in a purely relative sense compared to the current practice,

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Hi, On 08/04/2017 07:28 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > You must be joking, there is no proposed strict policy, just a very > lenient one. The work on the trademark policy has started a few years ago, and I was involved in the beginning. I can certainly vouch for one thing: The policy proposed here is,

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Simon, if you immediately dismiss or ridicule any critical thought here this will not really be a "public review and consultation". Without insisting that my own arguments on the matter have merit may i suggest you let people articulate and discuss their thoughts and refine their opinion in

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 04.08.2017 17:59, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Note the idea to ask for permission - apart from being inconvenient - > comes with two significant problems: > > * doing so removes the option to use a name without permission. This in > particular applies for the OpenXMap things. When using

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 04.08.2017 18:07, Jochen Topf wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > >> Yes and this is one of the big sore points, but we are not asking most >> of them to change there name, just to get licensed/permission in some >> form. To show why: there used to be an

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > > * Section 2.1 forbids anything called something like "OpenThingMap". > > This form of name is very popular, there are numerous existing > > examples (OpenPOIMap, OpenTopoMap, OpenSeaMap, ...) Do all of these > > have to change

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Friday 04 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote: > [...] > > As said, you simply need to ask for permission, we already have a > grandfathering policy for older domains were we essentially guarantee > that we will grant the permission, there is no reason we will not > grandfather/find a solution for

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Jochen Topf: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: >> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation >> on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the >> OSMF board for adoption as a formal

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Aug 4, 2017 08:19, "Jochen Topf" wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation > on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the > OSMF board for adoption as

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation > on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the > OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here: > > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

.. Am 04.08.2017 um 14:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > > Furthermore IMO it is not really in the interest of OpenStreetMap to > discourage use of the name in names of products that are based on > OpenStreetMap data. Naturally having to ask for permission "discourages" such use, which as I

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Matthijs Melissen: > On 3 August 2017 at 23:07, Simon Poole wrote: >> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation on >> our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the OSMF >> board for adoption as a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On 3 August 2017 at 23:07, Simon Poole wrote: > The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation on > our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the OSMF > board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here: The proposed

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > > remely unwieldy product names that just cause trouble" :-)). > I've always thought that using this name would the honest approach, > rather than selling a product called "Geofabrik's cool Geodata" > something or other, where the fact that it's

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Hi, On 04.08.2017 12:48, Simon Poole wrote: >> Geofabrik for example offers a product called "OpenStreetMap Data in >> Layered GIS Format" [1] - that is certainly a nominative use but at the >> same time also "sell(ing) stuff with OSM’s brand on it" as per section >> 3.4. > Yes, but that

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 12:29 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > > Nominative/referential use and including 'OpenStreetMap' in the name of > a product are not mutually exclusive. > > Geofabrik for example offers a product called "OpenStreetMap Data in > Layered GIS Format" [1] - that is certainly a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Friday 04 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote: > > I don't quite see why you believe there is a conflict, nominative > use, for example in the description of a product or service, is a > completely different kettle of fish than use in a product/service > name or on or as part of a product. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

For reference a couple of trademark policies from similar organisations: * WMF (starting from the same text, and no we are not going to spend what was likely equivalent to our yearly budget on making out version so flashy :-)) https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

Am 04.08.2017 um 11:39 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Thursday 03 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote: >> Dear all >> >> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and >> consultation on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring >> forward to the OSMF board for adoption as a

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

On Thursday 03 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote: > Dear all > > The LWG would like to start a period of public review and > consultation on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring > forward to the OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see > the text here: > > >