[Osmf-talk] 2020/Res29 Grant Cesium permission to use our trademark in their product “Cesium OSM Buildings“

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Tue Jun 9 08:56:44 UTC 2020

I think there is a slight misunderstanding here.

The OSMF didn't grant any exclusive rights for a specific mark, or
combination of marks/words. Further the OSMF cannot and shouldn't
remotely aspire to be a replacement for the trademark system and the
courts (actually asking for that would lead any sane person to come to
the conclusion that we shouldn't allow use of the marks in such
scenarios at all).

The only difference between Cesium and Jan, is that one asked politely
and the other didn't.


Am 09.06.2020 um 08:17 schrieb Christopher Beddow:
> I agree with Michael Reichert: there is a net negative effect on
> granting permission to use the same "OSM Buildings" name which serves
> to create confusion. In the future when this term is mentioned people
> will need to clarify if speaking about Jan's project or Cesium's product.
> I believe Cesium should be encouraged to use a different name in order
> to reduce confusion but otherwise appears to be a good intention. 
> I would say the same if any commercial OSM related product adopted a
> name like Go Map (similar to mobile app GoMap!!), or if someone
> created Cha OSM (similar to OSMCha). This to me is not about licensing
> but about a pragmatic way to keep things clear, by politely asking
> Cesium to take steps to do so. This can effect things like search
> engine optimization which caused Jan's project to be overwhelmed by
> searched for a well advertised commercial product, even if properly
> licensed, and would be unfortunate for people seeking what he offers. 
> On the other hand, it is difficult to think of a good alternative name
> because Jan's is so generic. 
> Chris Beddow
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 00:58 Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk
> <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>         It is true that Jan does not have a license for "OSM
>         Buildings" either
>         but granting licenses should not support name grabbing and hostile
>         takeovers of established names.
>     This doesn't seem accurate. You describe "OSM Buildings" as "an
>     open source project". Assuming that description is correct, then
>     OSM Buildings does have a license, under Section of the OSMF
>     Trademark Policy:
>             3.3.6. Use in software projects
>     Use of the OSM marks to name software components, packages, minor
>     tools, repositories and similar that process or work specifically
>     with OpenStreetMap data is permissible as long as the use follows
>     the rest of this policy.
>      https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#3.3.6._Use_in_software_projects
>     If, on the other hand, "OSM Buildings" is a product or business
>     name, then Jan should have requested a license when the Trademark
>     Policy went into effect (though nothing is stopping him from
>     making the request now).
>     -Kathleen
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200609/870772bc/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/20200609/870772bc/attachment.sig>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list