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
>the past).

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

Reply via email to