" 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 

Le 5 août 2017 11:37:07 GMT+02:00, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> a 
écrit :
>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
>OsmAnd situation.
>It's evident (from IRC, help.osm.org, other non-OSM forums etc.) that a
>of people assume OsmAnd is the official OpenStreetMap Android app. This
>already a problem in terms of support burden. It could potentially
>become a
>problem for others building apps on OSM data (if users say "oh, no, I'd
>rather use the official app") or by effectively encouraging mapping for
>official-sounding renderer. In brief, I don't believe we should have
>permitted OsmAnd to use that name, though by now the ship has almost
>certainly sailed.
>How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not
>though, I have no idea.
>View this message in context:
>Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>talk mailing list
talk mailing list

Reply via email to