Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.
Christopher Woods (IWD) writes: > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote: > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the > > C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers > > about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about > > it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case > > that can be as hairy as trademark and copyright issues. > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in > proximity of Google services. Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having allowed generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their trademark was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a Google geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible. Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do, because there is no way to link to that service without infringing their trademark (claim). My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands. > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation. The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's *Google*. -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk