[OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 1 February 2013 19:06, Jeff Meyer <jeff en gwhat.org> wrote:

> The OSMF BoD is doing the job for which its members were elected. Thank
> goodness.
>
> There's a trademark. We've been served notice (I believe). The board has
> made a decision. The chairman of the board (probably a (tm) term...) has
> communicated this decision.
>
> Fine, disagree, but please disagree with a plan for how to fund your
> alternate plan, describing in detail the source of new funds or what other
> OSMF activities should be de-funded to support this plan.
>

I agree with what you're saying although I can't help thinking that if the
OSMF can't take the risk of having some things in the wiki, the solution,
for everyone's benefit, is to move the wiki to a server that's not paid for
by the OSMF.  I'm positive finding such a server wouldn't be difficult (in
fact the home page says it is hosted at UCL & ByteMark -- so if the OSMF is
neither hosting nor writing the content, should it accept the C+D?  The
admins *are* OSMF members, but they're not OSMF).  The OSMF has at some
point started assuming responsibility for what is being published in the
database and now on the wiki.  In the case of the database it makes sense
for someone to give some level of warranty that the data in it in fact is
legally usable, although the consequences of this step have had a terrible
effect on the map and the community so far.


> Yes, it sounds silly to trademark geocode, yes, it's a US-only thing, but
> these issues are solved in courts, with real money for real lawyers, not
> well-reasoned arguments on email threads supported by personal moral and
> ethical constructs and not law.
>

You know, anything someone will say, who is not the judge, is just a well
reasoned argument (or not that well reasoned) and the law will have a final
word.  Doesn't mean that someone pointing out that the law makes it
unlikely for the owner of the GEOCODE trademark to sue a company in UK, or
for it to be costly to resolve, shouldn't be listened to.

Cheers
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130201/4ff1ba92/attachment.html>