search

tieguy / OSM-collabmark.org

Discussing trademarks for free culture
http://collabmark.org
2 stars 2 forks source link

Magnifying glass remixes allowed? #18

Open tieguy opened 7 years ago

tieguy commented 7 years ago

Simon and Frederik both raised concerns about the language around the looking glass. Frederik says:

"Sec. 2.1 Having to ask permission to remix the looking glass logo could be contentious. Just look at the number of logos that have been made http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Logos - would we not stifle that enthusiasm too much? Could the "ask before you do" be at least replaced by "OSMF reserves the right to disallow if found offensive" or so?"

Luis has no strong feeling on this issue.

simonpoole commented 7 years ago

Not quite on topic, but that should be "magnifying glass logo". Old typo from me.

tieguy commented 7 years ago

It is right in the license, wrong in the issue. So retitled the issue.

woodpeck commented 7 years ago

Suggestion:

for 2.1, 4th bullet point:

for 3.5 (new):

If you are running a non-commercial, OpenStreetMap related Open Source project or a non-commercial, OpenStreetMap related web site, you may create modified versions of the magnifying glass logo to suit your special interest if your endeavour follows the rest of this policy.

(I am unhappy with the "non-commercial". It doesn't quite capture what I want to do. But it's the best I can think of right now.)

simonpoole commented 7 years ago

The problem is that "non-commercial"/"commercial" is not well defined and even similar legal definitions vary a lot by country. For example should an OSM community website running some ads to cover costs be covered by your policy or not? In Germany this would likely not be considered "non-commercial".

On the other hand I wouldn't want to weaken that to "non-profit" (which while fuzzy is still better than "non-commercial"), because of the obvious potential for misuse.

simonpoole commented 7 years ago

Maybe we should simply apply my usual Gordian Knot solution strategy to this: simply list what we actually want to allow.

anything more? We might want to qualify the first item with "open source".

Note: I specifically did not list navigation apps and similar, as I believe they should undertake the effort to roll their own.

tieguy commented 7 years ago

Listing out uses is an acceptable solution in this context. Anything else that should go in that list?

woodpeck commented 7 years ago

Simon's two items sound good for now, we can always amend later if deemed necessary.