Hi, Simon, Daniel and forks.
Sorry for head reply because of Mobile mailer
I'm also similar interest to IP issue. OSMF Japan already hold the trademark,
OpenStreetMap, to protect from abuse and to keep freely available for free use.
Taking such IP by foreigners is difficult work, but keeping is relative easy.
IMHO, OSMF can give a delegate right of taking IP to chapter with written
document.
And OSMF need to help chapter to transfer IP.
domains are easier example. Trademark is my concern.
It is necessary helped by IP specialist to transfer it.
HIROSHI
Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
>
>Am 17.10.2013 02:25, schrieb Daniel Kastl:
>>
>>
>> In general I think the agreement is good, because it keeps everything
>> quite simple and - speaking for the Japanese local "chapter" - there
>> shouldn't be any issues.
>>
>> Just let me comment a few points:
>>
>> * (4.5) OSM related domains for Japan and also SotM Asia have been
>> registered already by OSMF Japan. I think it would be a headache
>> to make a request to register domains to OSMF. Also some domains
>> require a local postal address.
>>
>There are quite a few countries that have restrictions on who/what can
>register a domain and obviously if something is not possible, we are
>not
>going to change it. In such cases it would be and is perfectly
>acceptable for the local chapter to register the domain and that is
>essentially the situation with nearly all existing domains used by the
>local chapters. The important point is that in the (unlikely) case that
>the local chapter ceases to be a chapter, the domains are either
>transferred to the OSMF or deregistered to make them available for a
>replacement chapter.
>
>> *
>>
>>
>> * (7.1) and (8.1) This is easy for English-speaking countries, but
>> quite unpopular and time-consuming task for others (like Japan),
>I
>> guess. I think some standardized form to fill in a few statistics
>> every year should be sufficient. I think the statistics, like
>> memberships, activities, and if the the local chapter could raise
>> funds for example, is what the OSMF would be interested in,
>right?
>>
>> That's all ...
>> Daniel
>>
>These are the "the OSMF isn't doing it either" points :-). I would
>agree
>that likely a (simple) standardized form would be best anything else is
>likely simply not going to be done. The 18 months after the end of the
>financial year is naturally very long, but again that is mainly due to
>the OSMF currently presenting it's numbers 13 months after the end of
>its financial year (due to the timing of the AGM to be on the same date
>as SOTM).
>
>Simon
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Local-chapters mailing list
>Local-chapters@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Local-chapters mailing list
Local-chapters@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
