[OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy
simon at poole.ch
Fri Aug 4 17:28:27 UTC 2017
On 04.08.2017 17:59, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Note the idea to ask for permission - apart from being inconvenient -
> comes with two significant problems:
> * doing so removes the option to use a name without permission. This in
> particular applies for the OpenXMap things. When using such a name in
> a case where it makes sense and where it has nothing to do with OSM
> (OpenAerialMap comes to mind) the idea that the OSMF would have the
> right to deny such use is fairly far fetched and with thin legal basis.
> So if i really want to use such a name it possibly makes more sense not
> to ask.
Would have (the original) OAM project chosen OpenAerialMap if it wasn't
closely modelling itself on OSM at the time and in fact was intended as
a complimentary project building on OSMs beginning popularity? No,
naturally not.. So, yes we have every moral and ethical right to limit
the use of a name derived from our marks and intentionally building on
the already well known name.
Matter of fact OAM is a good example of how a domainname can change
hands and end up with somebody completely different, exactly what we
don't want to happen.
> * permission could be subject to restriction (like: you may use this
> name for your map as long as the map is partly/primarily based on OSM
> data). For a business any such restriction would represent a
> significant constraint that would speak against asking for permission
> and using such a name.
Are we interested in companies using names that can be easily confused
(that is the criteria) with OSM for non-OpenStreetMap purposes? I don't
> I understand your reasons why you think the OSMF needs to have a strict
> policy here but it should be very clear that this would inevitably lead
> to the names "OpenStreetMap" and "OSM" and similar/composite terms
> being used much less even in fairly strictly OSM related projects that
> the OSMF would probably have no problem with using the name.
You must be joking, there is no proposed strict policy, just a very
More information about the talk