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
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 t
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
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. Jus
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.
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
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 mor
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 migh
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 domai
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, op
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
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 a
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 a
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 withou
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
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
" 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 11:3
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.
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 allowe
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 question
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
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 domai
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
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
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
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,
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 o
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 s
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
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 t
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 mo
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 poli
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, pl
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.
..
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 alrea
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, plea
On Friday 04 August 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> 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" :-)).
Ok, that is clear to me then.
And i
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 discoura
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
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
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
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.
>
> Exampl
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
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 form
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.o
45 matches
Mail list logo