[Osmf-talk] Treasurer's report for tomorrow's AGM

[Simon Poole]

Am 10.12.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> ...
> Well - if it were that simple that would probably be a good idea but as 
> you describe things it is likely common practice in that field to be 
> opaque about such details.  And this is probably not going to change 
> just because some client wants it to.
The base registry fees are typically public so that wouldn't be a
particularly good business model :-).
>
> Result for me: i now definitely regret i asked. But that's occupational 
> hazard if you poke your nose around. :-)
>
> Anyway thanks for doing the research.  It might after all lead to a more 
> factual discussion of the trademark matter.
>
I believe nobody has any problems with the questions. I for one, and I
think this goes for Frederik too, feel more uneasy when there aren't
any.  Particularly considering that why we are spending the funds is not
as immediately obvious compared to say hardware purchases.

That said, legal related costs are likely to continue to increase. One
thing we would like to do next year is a complete rewrite of the privacy
policy combined with a review of the internal processes, including
changing them where necessary. This is mainly driven by the introduction
of the new EU wide data protection legislation and not us just spending
money for the sake of it.

Simon

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20161210/101959fd/attachment.sig>