Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[John F. Eldredge]

On 9/18/2017 11:01 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

Am 18.09.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Stephan Knauss:

Hello Simon,

On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote:

Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have
not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is
associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with the project.

My main interest is whether we actually have OSM as a mark.

I assume you refer to this:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/markeng/__4.html


I wasn't actually specifically referenceing Germany, as said it really
depends on which territory you are looking at.

This requires a majority of the "users" associating OSM with the
OpenStreetMap Foundation, or maybe with the product the OSMF has which
is our database.

I assume without a registered trademark it would be up to the OSMF to
actually prove that they created the OSM mark by using it, right?

In general all trademarks require that you actually use them to at least
maintain your rights,


So wouldn't it be wise to actually register OSM to prevent any doubts
on having that mark? Costs don't seem that high. Googling mentions 300
EUR for a registration.

Are we confident, the majority associates OSM with OpenStreetMap?
There was the OSMAPS@ mark a while ago. It belonged to Ordnance Survey
Maps, which can also be abbreviated as OSM.

Can we even legally use OSM with Ordnance Survey having OSMM?
https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/002782688

Wouldn't they be legally required to protect their mark by asking us
to stop using OSM?

Where is the difference between us weakening the OSMM mark and FOSM
weakening the OSM mark?


Obviously I can't comment or even speculate on OS views on their marks,
and it is just as pointless speculating what we we would do if we were
not constrained by financial and manpower resources (as for example the
WMF for all practical purposes is not). As of now we are just covering
the most important things,

Simon


Under US law, at least, a trademark has to be defended (i.e., 
periodically searching for people making infringing use of the 
trademark, and sending them cease-and-desist letters), or else risk 
having a court later decide that the trademark has been abandoned and is 
now in the public domain, free for anyone to use without requiring 
permission.  This has happened over the years to a number of 
trademarks.  Once a trademark has been defended for a certain number of 
years (I am not certain how long), it gets further legal protection and 
you don't have to defend it quite so vigorously. Back about 15 years 
ago, I worked for a small company that was having to defend its 
trademark, so I have a layman's understanding of the issue.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out 
hate; only love can do that." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 18.09.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Stephan Knauss:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have
>> not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is
>> associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with the project.
>
> My main interest is whether we actually have OSM as a mark.
>
> I assume you refer to this:
> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/markeng/__4.html
>
I wasn't actually specifically referenceing Germany, as said it really
depends on which territory you are looking at.
> This requires a majority of the "users" associating OSM with the
> OpenStreetMap Foundation, or maybe with the product the OSMF has which
> is our database.
>
> I assume without a registered trademark it would be up to the OSMF to
> actually prove that they created the OSM mark by using it, right?
In general all trademarks require that you actually use them to at least
maintain your rights,

>
> So wouldn't it be wise to actually register OSM to prevent any doubts
> on having that mark? Costs don't seem that high. Googling mentions 300
> EUR for a registration.
>
> Are we confident, the majority associates OSM with OpenStreetMap?
> There was the OSMAPS@ mark a while ago. It belonged to Ordnance Survey
> Maps, which can also be abbreviated as OSM.
>
> Can we even legally use OSM with Ordnance Survey having OSMM?
> https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/002782688
>
> Wouldn't they be legally required to protect their mark by asking us
> to stop using OSM?
>
> Where is the difference between us weakening the OSMM mark and FOSM
> weakening the OSM mark?
>
Obviously I can't comment or even speculate on OS views on their marks,
and it is just as pointless speculating what we we would do if we were
not constrained by financial and manpower resources (as for example the
WMF for all practical purposes is not). As of now we are just covering
the most important things,

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Stephan Knauss]

Hello Simon,

On 18.09.2017 10:17, Simon Poole wrote:

Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have
not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is
associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with the project.


My main interest is whether we actually have OSM as a mark.

I assume you refer to this:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/markeng/__4.html

This requires a majority of the "users" associating OSM with the 
OpenStreetMap Foundation, or maybe with the product the OSMF has which 
is our database.


I assume without a registered trademark it would be up to the OSMF to 
actually prove that they created the OSM mark by using it, right?


So wouldn't it be wise to actually register OSM to prevent any doubts on 
having that mark? Costs don't seem that high. Googling mentions 300 EUR 
for a registration.


Are we confident, the majority associates OSM with OpenStreetMap?
There was the OSMAPS@ mark a while ago. It belonged to Ordnance Survey 
Maps, which can also be abbreviated as OSM.


Can we even legally use OSM with Ordnance Survey having OSMM? 
https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/002782688


Wouldn't they be legally required to protect their mark by asking us to 
stop using OSM?


Where is the difference between us weakening the OSMM mark and FOSM 
weakening the OSM mark?


Stephan

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Depending on the territory you can have rights in marks that you have
not registered and it is probably completely undisputed that OSM is
associated as strongly as OpenStreetMap with the project.

Why is using it in a domain name etc problematic: for the same reasons
as using any other mark is. Just ask Richard about OsmAnd.

Simon

PS: there is a list on the wiki of our successfully registered
trademarks that we keep reasonably up to date.

Am 18.09.2017 um 09:12 schrieb Stephan Knauss:
> Hello Simon,
>
> On 08.09.2017 20:02, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Further we've added a clarification to the FAQ wrt use of remixes in
>> domain names and that use of the OpenStreetMap mark soley for
>> attribution does not require a trademark notice.
>
> Most of us are not that fluent with trademark law, nor I am.
> Could you please give some hints why "osm" as part of domain names
> should conflict with our registered OpenStreetMap marks?
>
> Like "fosm".
>
> I tried to figure it out, but OSM does not seem to be a registered
> mark of the OpenStreetMap Foundation:
> https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/owners/574987
>
>
> There are two marks of OSM registered:
> https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#advanced/trademarks/1/50/n1=MarkVerbalElementText=OSM=AND=IS=ApplicationNumber=asc
>
>
> One in class 9, which does not seem to apply for out context and one
> registered for class 8 and 35 which could with some fantasy conflict.
>
> Again: I fully understand why OpenThingMap or OpenStreetSomething is
> bad. Or why the domain I had a wile ago for training stuff,
> "openstreetmap.academy" is problematic.
>
> But why is OSM as the abbreviation considered to be a problem?
> If we would want to protect it, shouldn't we register a trademark for it?
>
> We in this context is the OSMF.
>
> Stephan
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Stephan Knauss]

Hello Simon,

On 08.09.2017 20:02, Simon Poole wrote:

Further we've added a clarification to the FAQ wrt use of remixes in
domain names and that use of the OpenStreetMap mark soley for
attribution does not require a trademark notice.


Most of us are not that fluent with trademark law, nor I am.
Could you please give some hints why "osm" as part of domain names 
should conflict with our registered OpenStreetMap marks?


Like "fosm".

I tried to figure it out, but OSM does not seem to be a registered mark 
of the OpenStreetMap Foundation:

https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/owners/574987


There are two marks of OSM registered:
https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#advanced/trademarks/1/50/n1=MarkVerbalElementText=OSM=AND=IS=ApplicationNumber=asc

One in class 9, which does not seem to apply for out context and one 
registered for class 8 and 35 which could with some fantasy conflict.


Again: I fully understand why OpenThingMap or OpenStreetSomething is 
bad. Or why the domain I had a wile ago for training stuff, 
"openstreetmap.academy" is problematic.


But why is OSM as the abbreviation considered to be a problem?
If we would want to protect it, shouldn't we register a trademark for it?

We in this context is the OSMF.

Stephan

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

As promised we discussed the feedback so far at the LWG meeting yesterday.

We've added a clause 3.3.6. that clarifies that the use in repos,
libraries, software projects and so on is normally considered
nominative/referential use.

Further we've added a clarification to the FAQ wrt use of remixes in
domain names and that use of the OpenStreetMap mark soley for
attribution does not require a trademark notice.

This should cover the three major points raised.

You can find the wikified version of the updated document here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy

Simon






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.08.2017 um 23:21 schrieb molto...@gmail.com:
>
> 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.
I believe the only common case where we are requiring permission are the
domain names, which is as has been pointed out not that common as is.

>
> 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.
I believe we already do that in the FAQ.

>
> 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 
> protective.
>
Believe me, it was always clear that the domain names would be the most
discussed point (essentially nobody has commented on anything else up to
now to prove that point), and if we could have done this differently we
would have. Nobody denies that the word play can be fun, but you point
out the issues yourself, it extends beyond the community and it doesn't
jibe with trademark law in the real world.

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[moltonel]

Le 6 août 2017 15:55:04 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole  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
>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).

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 
protective.

-- 
Vincent de Phily
Sent from a phone.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.08.2017 um 19:37 schrieb Jochen Topf:
> ...
> I don't understand why the "OpenSomethingMap" issue has you so spooked.
I'm not spooked, it just nicely  illustrates the issues, I don't think I
ever even remotely commented on if OpenWeatherMap is particularly
confusable with OSM, it is a domain originally being used for a
community project (and therefore something we would have cinsidered
legit) and has now landed somewhere completly OSM unrelated.

>
> Anyway, this is all moot, because nobody believes that the OSMF would
> actually sue anybody, let alone a small helpless hobby project, to get
> hold of their domain or force them to sign some agreement. Especially
> not when all they are doing is using a name that a judge might or might
> not see as similar enough to the OpenStreetMap trademark.

I would like to point out that the only person talking about taking
formal legal steps is you, I firmly believe in enlightened self interest
and that the current domain holders when presented with the arguments
will choose what makes most sense for the OSM community and themselves.

>
> I am sure you have the best intentions of defending OSM against the big
> bad conglomerates, but I think the best defense is having a large and
> open community and eco-system, one where you don't have to ask for
> permission before you contribute.
While that sounds good, it has nothing to do with the reality of how
trademarks work. And creating yet another OSM mark remix isn't
contributing to anything, really.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Jochen Topf]

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 03:55:04PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> > 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).

I don't understand why the "OpenSomethingMap" issue has you so spooked.
I don't think anybody but you thinks something like "OpenWeatherMap" is
necessarily related to OpenStreetMap in any way. Why wood you? We all know
what a "weather map" is, so this is an "Open" one, which doesn't mean
much these days. The biggest problem we had with OpenSeaMap was always
not that they were somehow leaching from the great name we have, but
that they presented themselves as this great project when all they are
is a thin layer on top of OSM. They always downplayed their relationship
to OSM instead of using it to build their own reputation by piggybacking
on ours. I had to explain to many people that, no, they are just this
little offshoot of OSM. Albeit with better marketing.

Anyway, this is all moot, because nobody believes that the OSMF would
actually sue anybody, let alone a small helpless hobby project, to get
hold of their domain or force them to sign some agreement. Especially
not when all they are doing is using a name that a judge might or might
not see as similar enough to the OpenStreetMap trademark.

I am sure you have the best intentions of defending OSM against the big
bad conglomerates, but I think the best defense is having a large and
open community and eco-system, one where you don't have to ask for
permission before you contribute.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

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
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Rory McCann]

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.


Rory


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Rory McCann]

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.


Rory



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Nicolás Alvarez]

2017-08-04 8:53 GMT-03:00 Matthijs Melissen :
> This policy seems to protect against applications using OpenStreetMap
> in the name without using OpenStreetMap data. I don't think that's a
> serious problem, while the opposite 'problem' occurs quite often:
> projects using OpenStreetMap data without making it clear that they
> are doing so (except in some small attribution).
>
> For example, I would much rather have that people would call their app
> 'OpenStreetMap.me' rather than 'Maps.me'. This policy seems to
> discourage that.

That's actually a good example: would it have been okay if maps.me was
released as OpenStreetMap.me, we accepted it because it used only
OpenStreetMap data, and then it slowly started replacing some data
with other sources?

I personally wouldn't like something as official-sounding as
"OpenStreetMap.me" showing hotels in the wrong place where OSM has
them right, including subjective ratings and reviews for them, having
a prominent "get an Uber for this location" button, displaying ads
when tapping on POIs (I'm getting horoscopes right now), etc.

-- 
Nicolás

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Nicolás Alvarez]

Probably it's too late for OsmAnd and it has to be grandfathered by now.

I suppose Richard's question is more "how you would formulate a policy
that would have permitted osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd, if said
projects were to be created with the policy already in place". In
other words, how to prevent *future* OsmAnd-like naming situations.

-- 
Nicolás

2017-08-05 7:04 GMT-03:00 Yves :
> " How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd,
> though, I have no idea"
>
>
> How you formulate a policy that deals with the name of established projects,
> I have no idea. But should you? Maybe a far softer grandfathering rule would
> be easier.
> Yves
>
>
> Le 5 août 2017 11:37:07 GMT+02:00, Richard Fairhurst 
> a écrit :
>>
>> Roland Olbricht wrote:
>>>
>>>  This makes clear that neither the file name extension "osm" is
>>>  jeoparday. Or you do not want to discourage people from using
>>>  "osmium", "osmosis" or a range of other software.
>>
>>
>> I see your point there, but conversely I am really uncomfortable with the
>> OsmAnd situation.
>>
>> It's evident (from IRC, help.osm.org, other non-OSM forums etc.) that a
>> lot
>> of people assume OsmAnd is the official OpenStreetMap Android app. This is
>> already a problem in terms of support burden. It could potentially become
>> a
>> problem for others building apps on OSM data (if users say "oh, no, I'd
>> rather use the official app") or by effectively encouraging mapping for
>> this
>> official-sounding renderer. In brief, I don't believe we should have
>> permitted OsmAnd to use that name, though by now the ship has almost
>> certainly sailed.
>>
>> How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd,
>> though, I have no idea.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Draft-Trademark-Policy-tp5900227p5900330.html
>> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> 
>>
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 05.08.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Yves:
> " How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not
> OsmAnd,
> though, I have no idea"
>
>
> How you formulate a policy that deals with the name of established
> projects, I have no idea. But should you? Maybe a far softer
> grandfathering rule would be easier.
> Yves
>
Just so that there is no misunderstanding: we have not formulated a
specific grandfathering regime wrt software products with "osm" in their
name, or if it is even necessary and can't be just as well be looked at
on a case by case base.

Basically, simply adding clear notices as suggested in section 2 would
already go a long way in making things clear.

I slightly disagree with Richard (not on that the misdirected OsmAnd
support request are annoying :-)), but OsmAnd is a community and a
commercial undertaking at the same time, I would find it difficult to
reason why it should be treated differently than osmose, osmosis and all
the other confusingly similarly named apps, tools and so on.

In any case we shouldn't exaggerate the size of the issue, we have lots
and lots of applications in osm space that don't have the naming issues
and just as with the domain names, the -actual- number of things we need
to look at is small and I'm sure we'll find workable solutions for them.

Simon





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Yves]

" How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd,
though, I have no idea" 


How you formulate a policy that deals with the name of established projects, I 
have no idea. But should you? Maybe a far softer grandfathering rule would be 
easier. 
Yves 


Le 5 août 2017 11:37:07 GMT+02:00, Richard Fairhurst  a 
écrit :
>Roland Olbricht wrote:
>> This makes clear that neither the file name extension "osm" is 
>> jeoparday. Or you do not want to discourage people from using 
>> "osmium", "osmosis" or a range of other software.
>
>I see your point there, but conversely I am really uncomfortable with
>the
>OsmAnd situation.
>
>It's evident (from IRC, help.osm.org, other non-OSM forums etc.) that a
>lot
>of people assume OsmAnd is the official OpenStreetMap Android app. This
>is
>already a problem in terms of support burden. It could potentially
>become a
>problem for others building apps on OSM data (if users say "oh, no, I'd
>rather use the official app") or by effectively encouraging mapping for
>this
>official-sounding renderer. In brief, I don't believe we should have
>permitted OsmAnd to use that name, though by now the ship has almost
>certainly sailed.
>
>How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not
>OsmAnd,
>though, I have no idea.
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Draft-Trademark-Policy-tp5900227p5900330.html
>Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Richard Fairhurst]

Roland Olbricht wrote:
> This makes clear that neither the file name extension "osm" is 
> jeoparday. Or you do not want to discourage people from using 
> "osmium", "osmosis" or a range of other software.

I see your point there, but conversely I am really uncomfortable with the
OsmAnd situation.

It's evident (from IRC, help.osm.org, other non-OSM forums etc.) that a lot
of people assume OsmAnd is the official OpenStreetMap Android app. This is
already a problem in terms of support burden. It could potentially become a
problem for others building apps on OSM data (if users say "oh, no, I'd
rather use the official app") or by effectively encouraging mapping for this
official-sounding renderer. In brief, I don't believe we should have
permitted OsmAnd to use that name, though by now the ship has almost
certainly sailed.

How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd,
though, I have no idea.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Draft-Trademark-Policy-tp5900227p5900330.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 05.08.2017 um 09:15 schrieb Jochen Topf:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:07:47PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of
>> domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The
>> policy is rather clear on what is allowed and what not, and if there are
>> further questions we can address that in the FAQs.
> My number was not referring to domains alone, but also to other
> projects, software etc. See below.
>
> And, no, the policy is not clear at all. Maybe to you with your
> background but not to me and not to many others I would think. The
> discussion here shows that it isn't. There are obvious further questions
> that I am asking in this discussion and you are not answering them but
> referring me to a FAQ that will be written in the future, maybe after
> the policy has been decided on? Why are we having this discussion here
> at all? Can somebody please at least try to answer my questions?
>
>> Why would we be interested in the names of github repos/projects? We are
>> mainly interested in use of our marks in commerce and similar/related
>> activities and registrations that convey exclusive rights (domain and
>> company names etc).,
> Ah. You are "mainly interested in". Maybe you should put that in the
> policy then... And write down what the difference is between "commerce
> and similar/related activities" and things that are purely hobby, which
> I suppose is okay? We have been through this discussion a thousand times
> in relation to copyright and the non-commercial clause in some CC
> licenses and why it is bad because we can't differentiate between
> commercial and hobby use really. Why is this different here? Can we
> differentiate? The policy as it stands now certainly doesn't seem to
> make a distinction there.
>
> Back to the question of software and github repo names: The policy
> doesn't even mention "software" or "apps" as a category. So I look for
> the best fitting case which seems to me 4.3 "Publications" for which I
> would need a license. Is this a wrong interpretation? Do I understand
> you correctly that I can have a software with the name OpenStreetMap in
> the title in a github repo and it doesn't fall under this policy?
To clarify this, the main point is that use of the marks should not be
confusing, see 2.

If somebody went off and created a OpenTreetMap github organisation,
then yes, I would consider that problematic, but for your typical repo I
just don't see issue, not really different than say subdomains which are
at least from a text pov very similar, see 4.1.

Wrt tools and so on, I wrote in the answer to you "... and we may add a
similar clause as we have for remixed logos ." (see 3.5) We need to
discuss this in the LWG (as any other items that have been brought up),
and decide if it needs additional text, and if yes, what exactly. If we
decide that we don't want to explicitly address such use (given all the
other special cases we have listed rather unlikely), and you are still
unhappy then it makes sense to complain further.

As to hobby vs commercial use: they as you say, tend to be one in OSM,
but that is exactly why certain things, that can't easily be undone,
need to be controlled more than others. The harmless hobby project can
be the commercial enterprise owned by your favourite big US conglomerate
the next day. 

The difference I was trying to make was more using a mark in a repo
name, directory, small tool or similar which is likely nominative use or
very close to it and for example using the same as the name of the app
on the google play store (regardless of if is commercial or hobby or
whatever). While the former may be fuzzy, the later is not.  And as
people that have for example made "OpenStreetMap" and "Open Street Map"
and other variants  apps available via google know, that is not a change
of policy. 

Simon 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Jochen Topf]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:07:47PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of
> domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The
> policy is rather clear on what is allowed and what not, and if there are
> further questions we can address that in the FAQs.

My number was not referring to domains alone, but also to other
projects, software etc. See below.

And, no, the policy is not clear at all. Maybe to you with your
background but not to me and not to many others I would think. The
discussion here shows that it isn't. There are obvious further questions
that I am asking in this discussion and you are not answering them but
referring me to a FAQ that will be written in the future, maybe after
the policy has been decided on? Why are we having this discussion here
at all? Can somebody please at least try to answer my questions?

> Why would we be interested in the names of github repos/projects? We are
> mainly interested in use of our marks in commerce and similar/related
> activities and registrations that convey exclusive rights (domain and
> company names etc).,

Ah. You are "mainly interested in". Maybe you should put that in the
policy then... And write down what the difference is between "commerce
and similar/related activities" and things that are purely hobby, which
I suppose is okay? We have been through this discussion a thousand times
in relation to copyright and the non-commercial clause in some CC
licenses and why it is bad because we can't differentiate between
commercial and hobby use really. Why is this different here? Can we
differentiate? The policy as it stands now certainly doesn't seem to
make a distinction there.

Back to the question of software and github repo names: The policy
doesn't even mention "software" or "apps" as a category. So I look for
the best fitting case which seems to me 4.3 "Publications" for which I
would need a license. Is this a wrong interpretation? Do I understand
you correctly that I can have a software with the name OpenStreetMap in
the title in a github repo and it doesn't fall under this policy?

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Jochen Topf]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#OpenStreetMap_Trademark_Policy

Can you say something about the rationale behind the split between
"Community members" and "Unrelated organizations or individuals" in
section 1.3? It seems to me this distinction is difficult to make in a
legally strict form. Is one edit enough to be a community member? Or if
you come to a mapping party?

Traditionally the OSM community has been defined as "everybody who feels
like they are a member is a member". But even if the new rule is somewhat
stricter, "at least 3 edits" or whatever, this isn't something you can
easily build legal distinctions on, because anybody who wants to subvert
the policy can easily become a member by making this necessarily low
hurdle. (And, by the way, I have seen much more activity from OSM
community members than from outsiders that is giving OSM a bad name...)

So the distinction has to come not from what you *are* (member or
unrelated) but what you *do*.

This distinction is used for two things in the document, one is about
*what you are* "Community members are generally free to use all OSM marks
for community-focused events" (1.3.1) etc. The other is about who the
*objects of your activity are* (Community-focused events 3.1 etc).

I think the second use makes sense, but the first use is a bit
questionable and hides the fact that the community members have the same
restrictions on what they can actually do than the outside people have.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Roland Olbricht]

Hi Simon,

I appreciate that you have in the past helped to smoothen so much of the 
law bureaucracy that OpenStreetMap cannot avoid.


> It obviously wasn't to complicated and required lawyers to register the
> domain names in the first place and as the FAQ says we are only asking
> for the domainnames to be de-registered or given to the OSMF when they
> are no longer used for OpenStreetMap related purposes.

The problem is that the policy does nowhere restrict itself to 
domainnames. At the moment, a braindead lawyer/judge combination could 
harm your on using a file with file name extension "osm" were the 
Trademark policy to come into effect.


Would you mind to make the following change:

- Amend chapter 1 with a section 1.6

1.6 Use of the wordmarks

The term "use of the wordmarks" is restricted to incorporating the
wordmarks as part of a second level domain name. Other uses, in
particular as a reference to the OpenStreetMap project, for
attribution purposes and purely descriptive usage and Fair Use
are always granted without explicit permission.

Different from that, we assume that using the logos is never for
attribution or descriptive purposes and therefore requires a license
if stated so in this document.

This makes clear that neither the file name extension "osm" is 
jeoparday. Or you do not want to discourage people from using "osmium", 
"osmosis" or a range of other software.


Or to fear that the license is not free at all
- using the data requires attribution
- whether attribution is already a trademark infringe is at the OSMF 
capriciousness


Best regards,

Roland

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Christoph

There are definitely points that can be addressed and improved (always) and I 
already agreed that we should include one of the points you touched on in the 
FAQ, the problem with some of the items you raise is that they essentially boil 
down to no management of domain names that use or are easily confused with our 
marks. 

I repeat the wording here "Please don’t register a domain that looks or sounds 
similar to an OSM mark, or includes a misspelled OSM mark" if the domain in 
question does not fulfill the criteria then it is not affected. For the domains 
that do conflict in the end we put the ganrdfathering procedure in to place.

As I pointed out to Jochen the number of potentially relevant domains is not 
particularly large and not all of them are easily confused with with our marks. 
This should not be major drama.

In an age in which essentially all OSM related activity takes place on the 
Internet and domain names are essentially ersatz-trademarks I can't see 
excluding them from the policy as being sensible.

Sorry.

Simon


On 04.08.2017 20:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Simon, if you immediately dismiss or ridicule any critical thought here 
> this will not really be a "public review and consultation".  Without 
> insisting that my own arguments on the matter have merit may i suggest 
> you let people articulate and discuss their thoughts and refine their 
> opinion in open discussion even if it appears to you they are in error 
> (which might at least in some cases be due to you misunderstanding 
> them).
>


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[mmd]

Am 04.08.2017 um 19:07 schrieb Simon Poole:
> On 04.08.2017 18:07, Jochen Topf wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>>

>> I think it is totally unrealistic to expect hobby projects based on OSM
>> to ask for permission. I see three likely outcomes:
> It obviously wasn't to complicated and required lawyers to register the
> domain names in the first place and as the FAQ says we are only asking
> for the domainnames to be de-registered or given to the OSMF when they
> are no longer used for OpenStreetMap related purposes.
>>
[...]
> 
> Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of
> domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The
> policy is rather clear on what is allowed and what not, and if there are
> further questions we can address that in the FAQs.

let's try to be a bit more specific here. Going through the "List of
OSM-based services" [1], I would come up with the following list of
candidates, which to my understanding would be affected in one way or
another by this Trademark Policy.

4.1. Domain names

osmarks.org, osmmosques.org, searchosm.com, osmcamera.tk
toposm.com, osmapa.pl, maps.osm2world.org, www.osm-3d.org
www.osmbuildings.org, osmocoder.de, osmlanduse.org, www.flosm.de
OsmHydrant.org, ra.osmsurround.org


5.1. Mimicking OSM sites ???

openbmap.org, openeventmap.net, openpoimap.org, openseamap.org
opensciencemap.org, openstreetphoto.org, openstreetview.org
opentouchmap.orgm, openbusinessmap.org, openwhatevermap.org
opencyclemap.org, opensnowmap.org, openstationmap.org
openwlanmap.org, openptmap.org, opengastromap.de
openlinkmap.de, openfiremap.org


Imho, it would be quite helpful to have some (possibly real world)
examples as part of the FAQ, highlighting potential issues and how to
deal with them.

Also, I'm wondering if such a policy would need a severability clause as
well?


-- 



[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM-based_services


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 04 August 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Which doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement, but calling
> this a "strict" policy certainly means you haven't read a lot of
> trademark policies ;)

I meant 'strict' here in a purely relative sense compared to the current 
practice, not in absolute terms.  For this you would be right, i have 
next to no knowledge of trademark policies elsewhere and before getting 
into comparative analysis here we would also have to think about what 
kind of organization the OSMF can actually be compared to in this 
field.

So i stick to looking at what we have now and what this policy would 
change.  I am sorry if this was not apparent from what i wrote.

And in case this is not clear: I have not yet formed an opinion on the 
matter, i am still in the process of analyzing what effects a change in 
policy (from essentially no rules to these - however strict or lenient 
you might consider them) will have.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/04/2017 07:28 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> You must be joking, there is no proposed strict policy, just a very
> lenient one.

The work on the trademark policy has started a few years ago, and I was
involved in the beginning. I can certainly vouch for one thing: The
policy proposed here is, compared to trademark policies of other "Open"
projects like e.g. Debian, very, very lenient. There are explicit
permissions for the community to use the marks for various purposes
without asking permission; you may even print T-Shirts at a community
event and sell them (!) without having to ask anyone for permission. You
will be hard pressed to find any trademark policy that goes to such
lengths to give the community the freedom to use what is essentially
their marks.

Which doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement, but calling
this a "strict" policy certainly means you haven't read a lot of
trademark policies ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Christoph Hormann]

Simon, if you immediately dismiss or ridicule any critical thought here 
this will not really be a "public review and consultation".  Without 
insisting that my own arguments on the matter have merit may i suggest 
you let people articulate and discuss their thoughts and refine their 
opinion in open discussion even if it appears to you they are in error 
(which might at least in some cases be due to you misunderstanding 
them).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

On 04.08.2017 17:59, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Note the idea to ask for permission - apart from being inconvenient - 
> comes with two significant problems:
>
> * doing so removes the option to use a name without permission.  This in 
> particular applies for the OpenXMap things.  When using such a name in 
> a case where it makes sense and where it has nothing to do with OSM 
> (OpenAerialMap comes to mind) the idea that the OSMF would have the 
> right to deny such use is fairly far fetched and with thin legal basis.  
> So if i really want to use such a name it possibly makes more sense not 
> to ask.

Would have (the original) OAM project chosen OpenAerialMap if it wasn't
closely modelling itself on OSM at the time and in fact was intended as
a complimentary project building on  OSMs beginning popularity? No,
naturally not.. So, yes we have every moral and ethical right to limit
the use of a name derived from our marks and intentionally building on
the already well known name.

Matter of fact OAM is a good example of how a domainname can change
hands and end up with somebody completely different, exactly what we
don't want to happen.

> * permission could be subject to restriction (like: you may use this 
> name for your map as long as the map is partly/primarily based on OSM 
> data).  For a business any such restriction would represent a 
> significant constraint that would speak against asking for permission 
> and using such a name.

Are we interested in companies using names that can be easily confused
(that is the criteria) with OSM for non-OpenStreetMap purposes? I don't
think so.

>
> I understand your reasons why you think the OSMF needs to have a strict 
> policy here but it should be very clear that this would inevitably lead 
> to the names "OpenStreetMap" and "OSM" and similar/composite terms 
> being used much less even in fairly strictly OSM related projects that 
> the OSMF would probably have no problem with using the name.
>
You must be joking, there is no proposed strict policy, just a very
lenient one.

Simon

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

On 04.08.2017 18:07, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> Yes and this is one of the big sore points, but we are not asking most
>> of them to change there name, just to get licensed/permission in some
>> form. To show why: there used to be an OSM based project called
> I think it is totally unrealistic to expect hobby projects based on OSM
> to ask for permission. I see three likely outcomes:
It obviously wasn't to complicated and required lawyers to register the
domain names in the first place and as the FAQ says we are only asking
for the domainnames to be de-registered or given to the OSMF when they
are no longer used for OpenStreetMap related purposes.
>
> * Most people will not know about the policy or they don't care and
>   they might choose a name that doesn't follow the policy. It takes a
>   while for OSMF to find out about this, get organized, and ask for a
>   license application or a name change. By that time the people are
>   already attached to their name. This will generate bad blood, not
>   to mention what you are going to do if the people ignore OSMF.
>
> * People who know about the policy choose a name that doesn't violate
>   the trademark policy. But they are outsiders now. They will avoid
>   to even mention OSM, they will not feel as part of the community
>   any more. We have always argued that everybody who does something
>   with OSM is part of the community, you don't have to be an OSMF
>   member, you don't have to have your service running on OSMF servers.
>   This great eco-system is in jeopardy if you alienate all those
>   people.
>
> * You scare people away from doing anything OSM-related because they
>   don't know and understand what they are allowed to do and what not.

Sorry but that is hyperbole, after the 13 years of OSM the number of
domains affected amounts to something between 30 and 40., not 100s. The
policy is rather clear on what is allowed and what not, and if there are
further questions we can address that in the FAQs.
>
> I can tell you that I will certainly not apply for a license/permission
> for any of my hobby projects. In the worst case license means lawyers
> and money, in the best case it means I have signed something that
> promises I behave in certain ways. What if I do something unwittingly
> that oversteps the permission in that license I got. What if I change a
> website I got the license for in some way, do I have to get re-licensed?
> Sure, all those things are less problematic in reality than they are
> in the real world. But for a hobby project I don't need this. And there
> is always something down the line that comes back to bite you. Some of
> my projects have Debian packages for instance, which for many years
> called their "Firefox" package "Iceweasel" because of Mozillas trademark
> policy. (They recently switched back to the name "Firefox", I don't
> know what changed.)
>
> And again the question of the practicality of all this: Even if people
> have to get licenses and actually do, we are looking at at least
> several hundreds of projects (There are nearly 3000 repositories on
> Github that have "openstreetmap" in their name or description).
> Can the OSMF even handle this?
>
> Jochen
Why would we be interested in the names of github repos/projects? We are
mainly interested in use of our marks in commerce and similar/related
activities and registrations that convey exclusive rights (domain and
company names etc).,

Simon

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Jochen Topf]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Simon Poole 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?
> Yes and this is one of the big sore points, but we are not asking most
> of them to change there name, just to get licensed/permission in some
> form. To show why: there used to be an OSM based project called

I think it is totally unrealistic to expect hobby projects based on OSM
to ask for permission. I see three likely outcomes:

* Most people will not know about the policy or they don't care and
  they might choose a name that doesn't follow the policy. It takes a
  while for OSMF to find out about this, get organized, and ask for a
  license application or a name change. By that time the people are
  already attached to their name. This will generate bad blood, not
  to mention what you are going to do if the people ignore OSMF.

* People who know about the policy choose a name that doesn't violate
  the trademark policy. But they are outsiders now. They will avoid
  to even mention OSM, they will not feel as part of the community
  any more. We have always argued that everybody who does something
  with OSM is part of the community, you don't have to be an OSMF
  member, you don't have to have your service running on OSMF servers.
  This great eco-system is in jeopardy if you alienate all those
  people.

* You scare people away from doing anything OSM-related because they
  don't know and understand what they are allowed to do and what not.

I can tell you that I will certainly not apply for a license/permission
for any of my hobby projects. In the worst case license means lawyers
and money, in the best case it means I have signed something that
promises I behave in certain ways. What if I do something unwittingly
that oversteps the permission in that license I got. What if I change a
website I got the license for in some way, do I have to get re-licensed?
Sure, all those things are less problematic in reality than they are
in the real world. But for a hobby project I don't need this. And there
is always something down the line that comes back to bite you. Some of
my projects have Debian packages for instance, which for many years
called their "Firefox" package "Iceweasel" because of Mozillas trademark
policy. (They recently switched back to the name "Firefox", I don't
know what changed.)

And again the question of the practicality of all this: Even if people
have to get licenses and actually do, we are looking at at least
several hundreds of projects (There are nearly 3000 repositories on
Github that have "openstreetmap" in their name or description).
Can the OSMF even handle this?

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 04 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
> [...]
>
> As said, you simply need to ask for permission, we already have a
> grandfathering policy for older domains were we essentially guarantee
> that we will grant the permission, there is no reason we will not
> grandfather/find a solution for more recent registrations we might
> simply be more picky, that mainly because we believe there are some
> domain names in circulation that should not be.

Note the idea to ask for permission - apart from being inconvenient - 
comes with two significant problems:

* doing so removes the option to use a name without permission.  This in 
particular applies for the OpenXMap things.  When using such a name in 
a case where it makes sense and where it has nothing to do with OSM 
(OpenAerialMap comes to mind) the idea that the OSMF would have the 
right to deny such use is fairly far fetched and with thin legal basis.  
So if i really want to use such a name it possibly makes more sense not 
to ask.
* permission could be subject to restriction (like: you may use this 
name for your map as long as the map is partly/primarily based on OSM 
data).  For a business any such restriction would represent a 
significant constraint that would speak against asking for permission 
and using such a name.

I understand your reasons why you think the OSMF needs to have a strict 
policy here but it should be very clear that this would inevitably lead 
to the names "OpenStreetMap" and "OSM" and similar/composite terms 
being used much less even in fairly strictly OSM related projects that 
the OSMF would probably have no problem with using the name.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Jochen Topf:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation
>> on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the
>> OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here:
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#OpenStreetMap_Trademark_Policy
> This is a very well-written document and the will to create a fair
> policy is clearly visible. But it immediately opens a whole slew of
> questions for me, many of them concerning my own projects.

Naturally we realize that parts of this policy are actually trying to
put worms back in to the can and that liberal amounts of grandfathering
will be needed to achieve that.

>
> * 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?
Yes and this is one of the big sore points, but we are not asking most
of them to change there name, just to get licensed/permission in some
form. To show why: there used to be an OSM based project called
OpenWeatherMap, somewhere along the road they sold out, abandoned use of
the name or whatever, in any case OpenWeatherMap is now a fully
commercial project that doesn't have anything to do at all with OSM. We
definitely want to stop the use of closeness to the OSM marks  as a
stepping stone to get rid of OSM when the undertaking is popular.

> * I have a written an open source software called "OSMCoastline" (among
>   many others), this clearly contains the "OSM" abbreviation. The use
>   of this software is very specific to OSM data. It doesn't make sense
>   for this software not to have OSM in its name really so much is it
>   tied to the OSM data. Can it keep this name? There is no mentioning
>   of software in the policy at all.
We haven't stated anything explicit, but you - can always simply ask for
permission and we may add a similar clause as we have for remixed logos .

> * I am running the website openstreetmapdata.com where people can download
> 

As said, you simply need to ask for permission, we already have a
grandfathering policy for older domains were we essentially guarantee
that we will grant the permission, there is no reason we will not
grandfather/find a solution for more recent registrations we might
simply be more picky, that mainly because we believe there are some
domain names in circulation that should not be.

Naturally this is a lot of pain and work and it would have all been a
lot easier 10 years ago, but naturally anybody using such a name was
doing so at their own risk the whole time.

> If such a policy is introduced, I would hope that the OSMF provides some
> proactive guidance to the many many people already doing good things
> based on OSM and help them get into compliance. I fear many people will
> rather stop offering their services instead of understanding the legal
> issues involved. This is especially important, because - from my limited
> understanding of trademark law - it is necessary to actually defend your
> trademarks if you want to keep them. So unlike the data license
> violations which the OSMF can ignore as much as it wants to without
> limiting what they can do in the future, the OSMF has to actually
> defend its trademark. So if the OSMF says that, say "OpenSeaMap" is not
> according to our policy, it HAS to fight it (even if nobody really minds
> them using this name) to make this stick. So just ignoring some
> violations and fighting others isn't possible. Which opens the whole
> question of whether the OSMF is organizationally and financially in a
> position to actually do this fighting? If not, why have this policy?
>
> Jochen

We believe that it is in the best interest of the whole OSM community if
we exert control over our marks as outlined in the policy, to not do so
increases the likelihood of misuse as I've outlined and other issues
(see the  mappy hour case in the US). Because of that we hope that we
will see a lot of  use of the grandfathering scheme (the number are not
really that large).

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Ian Dees]

On Aug 4, 2017 08:19, "Jochen Topf"  wrote:

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation
> on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the
> OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#
OpenStreetMap_Trademark_Policy

This is a very well-written document and the will to create a fair
policy is clearly visible. But it immediately opens a whole slew of
questions for me, many of them concerning my own projects.

* 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 have a written an open source software called "OSMCoastline" (among
  many others), this clearly contains the "OSM" abbreviation. The use
  of this software is very specific to OSM data. It doesn't make sense
  for this software not to have OSM in its name really so much is it
  tied to the OSM data. Can it keep this name? There is no mentioning
  of software in the policy at all.
* I am running the website openstreetmapdata.com where people can download
  OSM-derived data and only OSM-derived data. Currently all services
  there are free, we are only asking for donations (and receive almost
  none). But I want to reserve the right to charge for services there.
  The character of this site is in between a community site and
  something commercial. It comes out of my engagement for OSM and the
  OSM community, but it is not something run by the OSMF or so. It is
  run by me and Christoph personally and we might want to move it more
  into the direction of a commercial enterprise in the future. I know
  I am not alone with this, there are many sites that are half-open,
  half-community, half-commercial. And that is, in my opinion a good
  thing, because it is a way for OSM enthusiasts to move to something
  where they can make some money with what they are doing and sustain
  their services. But it raises the question of where community ends
  and trademark licenses are needed. It is quite clear from the policy
  that I can not keep using that domain name. What is not clear to me
  is how I have to do the wording on that site to keep within the
  Trademark Policy? Lets say I changed the site name to
  megaawesomedownloads.com, what else would I have to do? All the
  data on there is 100% derived from OSM data. I don't want to invent
  any bugus "product names", when I offer "OSM coastline data" for
  download, that describes best what you can download. Is a website
  a "Publication" in the sense of the section 4.3?

If such a policy is introduced, I would hope that the OSMF provides some
proactive guidance to the many many people already doing good things
based on OSM and help them get into compliance. I fear many people will
rather stop offering their services instead of understanding the legal
issues involved. This is especially important, because - from my limited
understanding of trademark law - it is necessary to actually defend your
trademarks if you want to keep them. So unlike the data license
violations which the OSMF can ignore as much as it wants to without
limiting what they can do in the future, the OSMF has to actually
defend its trademark. So if the OSMF says that, say "OpenSeaMap" is not
according to our policy, it HAS to fight it (even if nobody really minds
them using this name) to make this stick. So just ignoring some
violations and fighting others isn't possible. Which opens the whole
question of whether the OSMF is organizationally and financially in a
position to actually do this fighting? If not, why have this policy?


I think Jochen and others in this thread are giving great examples of an
important overall point about the OpenStreetMap community. The ongoing
position of the OSMF has been that it should run the API and the website
and the community should support and run any tools the community find
useful. It sounds like this policy is contradictory to that position in
that the community tools that happen to use OpenStreetMap in the name now
must ask for permission or change names.

I understand that OSMF wants to protect it's trademark, but extra care must
be taken to handle the unique situation of our community.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Jochen Topf]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation
> on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the
> OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here:
> 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#OpenStreetMap_Trademark_Policy

This is a very well-written document and the will to create a fair
policy is clearly visible. But it immediately opens a whole slew of
questions for me, many of them concerning my own projects.

* 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 have a written an open source software called "OSMCoastline" (among
  many others), this clearly contains the "OSM" abbreviation. The use
  of this software is very specific to OSM data. It doesn't make sense
  for this software not to have OSM in its name really so much is it
  tied to the OSM data. Can it keep this name? There is no mentioning
  of software in the policy at all.
* I am running the website openstreetmapdata.com where people can download
  OSM-derived data and only OSM-derived data. Currently all services
  there are free, we are only asking for donations (and receive almost
  none). But I want to reserve the right to charge for services there.
  The character of this site is in between a community site and
  something commercial. It comes out of my engagement for OSM and the
  OSM community, but it is not something run by the OSMF or so. It is
  run by me and Christoph personally and we might want to move it more
  into the direction of a commercial enterprise in the future. I know
  I am not alone with this, there are many sites that are half-open,
  half-community, half-commercial. And that is, in my opinion a good
  thing, because it is a way for OSM enthusiasts to move to something
  where they can make some money with what they are doing and sustain
  their services. But it raises the question of where community ends
  and trademark licenses are needed. It is quite clear from the policy
  that I can not keep using that domain name. What is not clear to me
  is how I have to do the wording on that site to keep within the
  Trademark Policy? Lets say I changed the site name to
  megaawesomedownloads.com, what else would I have to do? All the
  data on there is 100% derived from OSM data. I don't want to invent
  any bugus "product names", when I offer "OSM coastline data" for
  download, that describes best what you can download. Is a website
  a "Publication" in the sense of the section 4.3?

If such a policy is introduced, I would hope that the OSMF provides some
proactive guidance to the many many people already doing good things
based on OSM and help them get into compliance. I fear many people will
rather stop offering their services instead of understanding the legal
issues involved. This is especially important, because - from my limited
understanding of trademark law - it is necessary to actually defend your
trademarks if you want to keep them. So unlike the data license
violations which the OSMF can ignore as much as it wants to without
limiting what they can do in the future, the OSMF has to actually
defend its trademark. So if the OSMF says that, say "OpenSeaMap" is not
according to our policy, it HAS to fight it (even if nobody really minds
them using this name) to make this stick. So just ignoring some
violations and fighting others isn't possible. Which opens the whole
question of whether the OSMF is organizationally and financially in a
position to actually do this fighting? If not, why have this policy?

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  https://www.jochentopf.com/  +49-351-31778688

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

..

Am 04.08.2017 um 14:08 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>
> Furthermore IMO it is not really in the interest of OpenStreetMap to 
> discourage use of the name in names of products that are based on 
> OpenStreetMap data. 
Naturally having to ask for permission "discourages" such use, which as
I already pointed out to Matthijs is in my opinion a good thing.

Not just because of the confusion it causes, even if we grant
permission, but because of all the other aspects of using our marks in
product names on top. For example if we granted somebody the right to
name their product "OpenStreetMap Navigation" we are tipping the market
playing field to the advantage of that one player. It is really
something that we shouldn't be doing.

And yes we have a small number of cases where that has historically
happened without permission outside of the realm of pure user groups
(the local chapter process, and perhaps one day a local user group
structure are designed to deal with that), which are difficult to undo,
but that is not a reason to make things worse.

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.08.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Matthijs Melissen:
> On 3 August 2017 at 23:07, Simon Poole  wrote:
>> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation on
>> our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the OSMF
>> board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here:
> The proposed policy would discourage people from using 'OpenStreetMap'
> in their project names. To be honest, I don't think this policy is
> going the right way.

Allowing such use without laying down the rules opens up a gigantic can
of worms, that is what we are trying to avoid with putting this policy
in place, Further we have ample examples of were using our marks in
product names leads to clear confusion in the market and for consumers.

> This policy seems to protect against applications using OpenStreetMap
> in the name without using OpenStreetMap data. I don't think that's a
> serious problem, while the opposite 'problem' occurs quite often:
> projects using OpenStreetMap data without making it clear that they
> are doing so (except in some small attribution).
Note the question of using trademarks has nothing to do with providing
attribution for use of OSM data (with the narrow exception of the actual
attribution text), nor is using a trademark in a product or a service
name a replacement for proper attribution.

>
> For example, I would much rather have that people would call their app
> 'OpenStreetMap.me' rather than 'Maps.me'. This policy seems to
> discourage that.
I suspect we are going to have to disagree on that.

BTW in your scenario what would stop the hypothetical OpenStreetMap.me
starting to use Here or TomTom data  once they had established
themselves by using our well known name?

Simon

> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 3 August 2017 at 23:07, Simon Poole  wrote:
> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and consultation on
> our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring forward to the OSMF
> board for adoption as a formal policy, please see the text here:

The proposed policy would discourage people from using 'OpenStreetMap'
in their project names. To be honest, I don't think this policy is
going the right way.

This policy seems to protect against applications using OpenStreetMap
in the name without using OpenStreetMap data. I don't think that's a
serious problem, while the opposite 'problem' occurs quite often:
projects using OpenStreetMap data without making it clear that they
are doing so (except in some small attribution).

For example, I would much rather have that people would call their app
'OpenStreetMap.me' rather than 'Maps.me'. This policy seems to
discourage that.

-- Matthijs

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.08.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>
> remely unwieldy product names that just cause trouble" :-)).
> I've always thought that using this name would the honest approach,
> rather than selling a product called "Geofabrik's cool Geodata"
> something or other, where the fact that it's 100% processed OSM is
> somewhere in the small print.
Well how small the small print is, is your choice :-).

If you create a borderline case, you can't really complain if there is
an extra hoop or two to jump through. So you probably would need
permission, which likely would be contingent on a) it remaining true
that this is 100% OSM data and b) adding a notice, similar to what
Christoph already mentioned, to your product description.  Naturally in
the case of GeoFabrik the problem is actually finding somebody without a
CoI that could decide on the matter.
>> A personal note: one of my pet peeves are the awful unimaginative,
>> uncreative and descriptive product and service names used in OSM-space,
> I don't see why I should call something that simply is an OSM WMS by a
> creative name that requires everyone to follow an extra indirection to
> understand what it is.

I don't really think some thing like:

*/GeoFabrik Awesone WMS Services/*/
//
//100% guaranteed wholesome OpenStreetMap(TM) data served hot from
replication./

Really counts as "an extra indirection"

Simon


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04.08.2017 12:48, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Geofabrik for example offers a product called "OpenStreetMap Data in 
>> Layered GIS Format" [1] - that is certainly a nominative use but at the 
>> same time also "sell(ing) stuff with OSM’s brand on it" as per section 
>> 3.4.

> Yes, but that isn't a conflict. IMHO GeoFabrik simply needs permission
> to use the mark that way (and a further licence for "creating and using
> extremely unwieldy product names that just cause trouble" :-)).

I've always thought that using this name would the honest approach,
rather than selling a product called "Geofabrik's cool Geodata"
something or other, where the fact that it's 100% processed OSM is
somewhere in the small print.

> A personal note: one of my pet peeves are the awful unimaginative,
> uncreative and descriptive product and service names used in OSM-space,

I don't see why I should call something that simply is an OSM WMS by a
creative name that requires everyone to follow an extra indirection to
understand what it is.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.08.2017 um 12:29 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
>
> Nominative/referential use and including 'OpenStreetMap' in the name of 
> a product are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Geofabrik for example offers a product called "OpenStreetMap Data in 
> Layered GIS Format" [1] - that is certainly a nominative use but at the 
> same time also "sell(ing) stuff with OSM’s brand on it" as per section 
> 3.4.
>
> [1] http://www.geofabrik.de/data/geofabrik-osm-gis-standard-0.7.pdf
>
Yes, but that isn't a conflict. IMHO GeoFabrik simply needs permission
to use the mark that way (and a further licence for "creating and using
extremely unwieldy product names that just cause trouble" :-)).

Moving the current "product name" to the description and using something
else as the name of the product would naturally remove the need for
permission.

A personal note: one of my pet peeves are the awful unimaginative,
uncreative and descriptive product and service names used in OSM-space,
while I can just barely live with community projects not doing better,
you are not going to find me making excuses for commercial entities.

Simon






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 04 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> I don't quite see why you believe there is a conflict, nominative
> use, for example in the description of a product or service, is a
> completely different kettle of fish than use in a product/service
> name or on or as part of a product.
>
> Example the difference between saying "XY utilizes OpenStreetMap(TM)
> data to do Z" and naming a product "OpenStreetMap XY".

Nominative/referential use and including 'OpenStreetMap' in the name of 
a product are not mutually exclusive.

Geofabrik for example offers a product called "OpenStreetMap Data in 
Layered GIS Format" [1] - that is certainly a nominative use but at the 
same time also "sell(ing) stuff with OSM’s brand on it" as per section 
3.4.

[1] http://www.geofabrik.de/data/geofabrik-osm-gis-standard-0.7.pdf

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

For reference a couple of trademark policies from similar organisations:

  * WMF (starting from the same text, and no we are not going to spend
what was likely equivalent to our yearly budget on making out
version so flashy :-))
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy
  * OSGeo http://www.osgeo.org/trademark_guidelines
  * Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.08.2017 um 11:39 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Thursday 03 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and
>> consultation on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring
>> forward to the OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see
>> the text here:
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#OpenStreetMap_Tr
>> ademark_Policy
> Am i reading this right that to comply with both the ODbL and the 
> trademark policy i would have to - when using OSM data - add both
>
> Contains data Copyright OpenStreetMap Contributors
>
> and
>
> OpenStreetMap is a trademark of the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and is 
> used with their permission. This product is not endorsed by or 
> affiliated with the OpenStreetMap Foundation.
We will add a clarification (which was in the original text) to the FAQ,
we are not requiring the trademark notice as part of the attribution text.

>
> Also i am not sure if according to this policy i would have to obtain 
> permission from the OSMF to use the term 'OpenStreetMap' when 
> advertising commercial services and products based on OpenStreetMap 
> data.  This could be considered to fall under 3.3 
> (nominative/referential use) but 3.3.3 specifically excludes commercial 
> purposes.
>
I don't quite see why you believe there is a conflict, nominative use,
for example in the description of a product or service, is a completely
different kettle of fish than use in a product/service name or on or as
part of a product.

Example the difference between saying "XY utilizes OpenStreetMap(TM)
data to do Z" and naming a product "OpenStreetMap XY".

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 03 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
> Dear all
>
> The LWG would like to start a period of public review and
> consultation on our draft trademark policy, that we intend to bring
> forward to the OSMF board for adoption as a formal policy, please see
> the text here:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#OpenStreetMap_Tr
>ademark_Policy

Am i reading this right that to comply with both the ODbL and the 
trademark policy i would have to - when using OSM data - add both

Contains data Copyright OpenStreetMap Contributors

and

OpenStreetMap is a trademark of the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and is 
used with their permission. This product is not endorsed by or 
affiliated with the OpenStreetMap Foundation.

Also i am not sure if according to this policy i would have to obtain 
permission from the OSMF to use the term 'OpenStreetMap' when 
advertising commercial services and products based on OpenStreetMap 
data.  This could be considered to fall under 3.3 
(nominative/referential use) but 3.3.3 specifically excludes commercial 
purposes.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk