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 repo for now (there are already a small number of differences in the text vs Luis version), we could naturally move our (LWGs) fork to the OSM org to make the situation clearer.
> > 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") I've already given the examples that illustrate why allowing it in general is a bad idea, and for existing such projects in OSM space we've said that they would be grandfathered (with a couple of restrictions that guarantee that the projects remain OSM centric). As a tendency I would rather prefer not to add more worms to the can going forward, but I could imagine that we simply have a regime in which the OSMF registers and holds the domains (something that we've done in a couple of cases in the past). > Many in the OSM community would not think (say) "OpenBarberMap" is an > official thing from OSM/OSMF. That is naturally exactly the problem, a small group of people in the know (the OSM community) would not think so, but everybody else does. > > (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)) I removed a half sentence in which I pointed out that OpenStreetMap is the worst offender on essentially every possible count before posting, and if it was 2004 and this policy was in place, Steve would have got a big NO :-). Nonetheless we stipulate that in the mean time OpenStreetMap has gained notoriety and because of that has clearly a different standing than things trying to build on the success by remixing the OSM marks. > > 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. I hope you realize that it is -exactly- the other way around, for example you have zero chance of preferential treatment, no apologies. Yes, keeping high ethical standards, particularly wrt conflicts of interest, is a pain, but I hope I have both community and OSMF board support on continuing with that. I agree that we can't just talk away language barriers and to some degree that is an issue with every OSMF policy, but particularly with this one, and we may for once, actively seek translations when it is finished. We haven't discussed this in the LWG though. As you can see from the text we've tried to pre-approve the typical community activities, Jochen and Christoph have pointed to the software development related issues that we will address in one way or the other so there will be little interaction needed. Simon > > > Rory >
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list email@example.com https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk