Le 6 août 2017 15:55:04 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> 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
>> refers to something that is mapped in OSM. (ii) You are making a map
>> 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
>> 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
>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
>and holds the domains (something that we've done in a couple of cases
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 more
case, while some see it as low enough and are happy to use it in any case that
endangers the trademark.
Perhaps a middle ground can be reached by adding a FAQ with clear descriptions
of the usecases where permission is certain to be granted ? Keeping the
protection in place but making it less of a deterrant.
FWIW, I like the OpenThingMap and other osm wordplays naming theme. It adds to
the sense of cheerful community, with all those projects obviously being
related to OSM. This lighthearted naming should IMHO be cherrished and enabled,
but it also needs to be supervised so that it doesn't dilute the trademark.
I hope that the draft can be made more enabling while remaining just as
Vincent de Phily
Sent from a phone.
talk mailing list