[Osmf-talk] Proposed v2 of the Local Chapters Agreement, hopefully leading to OSMUS as a LC

Rory McCann (OSMF Board) rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org
Wed Jun 24 19:28:48 UTC 2020

On 24.06.20 00:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Questions like that become relevant now that you're essentially making
> the agreement un-stoppable.

What makes you think it's unstoppable?

The agreement can be terminated for any reason with 3 months notice 
(§10.1), previously it was longer (renews yearly & requires a 3 month 
notice), It can also be terminated immediately (§10.2) for some stated 
misbehaviours. Since we fixed the off-by-one typo, this technically 
includes more cases. In both cases the LC can appeal for independent 
mediation when OSMF & the LC disagree about the interpretation of terms 
in the agreement, which is fair. That's probably only useful for §10.2, 
since §10.1 has very few terms to disagree on.

In both cases the LC could appeal for OSMF members (regular & assoc.) to 
vote on that. (Same if OSMUS wants to cancel, OSMF can appeal that). But 
the agreement would be “reinstated”, so they wouldn't be a LC until the 
vote passes.

There's been a few reasonable safeguards in place, and increased in 
democratic oversight, so that's always good IMO.

> I wonder what thoughts the OSMF board has had about monetization of
> the OSM trademarks. Let's assume that one local chapter was
> exceptionally successful in raising donations or earning money with
> conferences or so, all under the banner of "it's for OpenStreetMap so
> give richly" > …
> (What if the reach of the chapter is much bigger than the region we
> have given them local chapter status for - for example what if 20% of
> SotM-US visitors or sponsors came from Canada?)
>> Regarding the use of trademarks, I would be very happy if it could be
> made clear that the use of the trademark must not be misleading and that
> it is the chapter's responsibility to ensure this in dealings with third
> parties. I don't want to read in the press that "XY corp has partnered
> with OpenStreetMap to do Z" when it fact it was an agreement with some
> local chapter.
 > …
> I would also like to make clear that the rights to use the OSM 
> trademarks apply only to the region the chapter is registered for. I 
> would not want a local chapter in one country starting to open 
> "OpenStreetMap outreach offices" in lots of other countries. I think
> the agreement does not currently forbid that.
These are interesting points. §7.1 says “You can't speak on behalf of 
the Foundation”, we should add “… or the OSM project outside [region]”. 
§4 says the LC will represent the interests of the local community in 
[region], a similar “and not outside that” might be good. But that would 
have to be worded carefully. Do you have any wording suggestions? 
(Patches welcome! 🙂)


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list