tom at compton.nu
Tue Dec 20 11:54:17 UTC 2011
On 20/12/11 11:44, SteveCoast wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> There are many reasons why this logo thread hasn't worked so smoothly, but
>> I'd pick out two differences. First, there's not really much community
>> buy-in for a new logo.
> So to be clear in your comparison here, you feel there is community buy-in for putting company logos on OSM?
Just to be clear about one thing, the MQ logo was not something that was
discussed at all when we were considering the MQ layer for inclusion on
the site. I can't say nobody considered it when voting but it certainly
wasn't part of the discussion.
All we discussed was the actual map rendering, and how it aligned with
the criteria set by strategic.
We were aware that attribution would be required, but the fact that the
preferred attribution included an image was something I that probably
discovered later when I actually went to add the layer and looked up the
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
More information about the osmf-talk