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
