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 asking for "Open[THING]Map" to be explicitly allowed
(with conditions): https://github.com/tieguy/OSM-collabmark.org/issues/32
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, open, maps, or that it must not be massively commerical, and must
not try to immitate OSM (So no "OpenRoadMap")
Many in the OSM community would not think (say) "OpenBarberMap" is an
official thing from OSM/OSMF.
(I echo Simon's concern for poorly named open source projects. Come up
with something more imaginative than "OpenWhatever" for your
app/project/site! (Technically OpenStreetMap is guilty of this :P))
Remember: requiring permission/licences has diversity
impacts. Granting a body (here OSMF) the sole power to grant/deny
permission/licence means that people who are friendly with the members
of the OSMF are likely to have their requests granted. One friend being
nice to another friend. If there are clear, detailed rules, then it
removes a lot of the leeway, and possibilities for unconscience biases,
and puts everyone on an equal footing.
talk mailing list