" 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 <rich...@systemed.net> 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
