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 rule would be easier. > Yves > Just so that there is no misunderstanding: we have not formulated a specific grandfathering regime wrt software products with "osm" in their name, or if it is even necessary and can't be just as well be looked at on a case by case base.
Basically, simply adding clear notices as suggested in section 2 would already go a long way in making things clear. I slightly disagree with Richard (not on that the misdirected OsmAnd support request are annoying :-)), but OsmAnd is a community and a commercial undertaking at the same time, I would find it difficult to reason why it should be treated differently than osmose, osmosis and all the other confusingly similarly named apps, tools and so on. In any case we shouldn't exaggerate the size of the issue, we have lots and lots of applications in osm space that don't have the naming issues and just as with the domain names, the -actual- number of things we need to look at is small and I'm sure we'll find workable solutions for them. Simon
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk