incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: OOo Trademark
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:47:44 GMT
Thanks for starting some detailed conversation.  A couple of meta notes:

- My objective is to minimize the number of special cases we have in our 
policies.  Unless there are really fundamental differences, I expect 
that the ASF-wide policy [1] will cover all projects.  Note: I plan on 
continuing to update it, especially the FAQ page, to cover exactly these 
kinds of "this specific kind of use is OK" cases.

- We should carefully consider which parts of the potential process 
would happen in public vs. private.

If we end up with an Apache OOo "Contact us here to request special 
permission", I think that should be done publicly, with a note to 
requester that the request will be public.

However trademark enforcement - i.e. us contacting third parties who may 
be improperly using our marks, or third parties reporting improper uses 
of our marks - is normally done privately, at least for the first 
contact to a third party.  This is because we've found that many cases 
are simple misunderstandings or mistakes, and they are often quickly 
cleaned up once we make a polite request.

- We do not currently have a template "here's permission" email or 
document, that's a longer term process we should work with the ASF Legal 
Affairs Committee at legal-discuss@ to create.

- Shane

On 7/21/2011 5:23 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> OK.  So let's outline a trademark policy.  As a strawman I'd propose:
>
> We add a webpage called "Trademark policy" that states states that
> Apache owns the trademarked name and logo, that there are certain uses
> of these trademarks that that require no permission from us, but that
> we require permission for any uses beyond this.
>
> The webpage would describes the pre-allowed uses, including at least
> the "nominative fair use" and other exceptions listed in the Apache
> Trademark Policy.  The list of pre-approved uses might be extended for
> this project, by mutual agreement of the PPMC and Apache Branding.
>
> Permission would be granted for specific, documented uses.  The
> trademark page would have a form for the requester to fill out,
> describing the intended trademark use. The form would also list our
> conditions on trademark use, likely including that usage shall not
> express endorsement by Apache, etc.  The form would also state that
> the permission will be revoked if the terms are violated.  The form
> template itself should be reviewed by Apache Branding as well as
> Apache Legal Affairs.  Perhaps there is a template we can borrow?
>
> A completed&  signed form would then be considered by the PPMC.
> Optional [DISCUSSION] thread, followed by at least 72-hour [VOTE].  A
> record of all granted and rejected permissions would be tracked by the
> PPMC.   Decisions would be public.  But we would need a policy on
> whether the request forms that are submitted are public or whether
> they are stored in the PPMC's private area.
>
> Is that generally the idea?   I'd like to avoid having a process that
> is unnecessarily heavyweight.  But if we have historically seen abuse
> of the trademark and anticipate seeing more, then we will need to take
> this process seriously.
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Shane Curcuru<asf@shanecurcuru.org>  wrote:
>> Thanks for the info.  Note that it would be helpful if people interested in
>> working with trademarks read the Apache policies, as well as our growing
>> list of FAQs:
>>
>>   http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>   http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/
>>
>> Part of my strategy is to attempt to cover as many of the basic kinds of
>> uses with generic documentation, and to try to limit the number of explicit
>> agreements or specific grants that we give to third parties.
>>
>> I.e. if we can clearly state in a policy that using our marks in manner X is
>> generally permissible, without having to fillin a webform or email for
>> written permission, it makes our life much, much simpler.  There are plenty
>> of uses of trademarks that don't require any permissions and are not
>> infringing - otherwise, how could I order a Coke (or a Pepsi) to drink?
>>
>> For things like journalists writing an article about Apache products, or
>> individuals with personal blogs who just want to link to the download page
>> for a product - I'd like to be able to point to a policy or FAQ that notes
>> if they do it appropriately, no explicit permission is required.
>>
>> Obviously with the userbase and reach of OpenOffice.org, we need to consider
>> how to manage the kinds of requests and the load of requests going forward,
>> now that we're becoming Apache OpenOffice.
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>> On 7/20/2011 9:06 PM, Peter Junge wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 20.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Andrew (or whoever): how/when can we get the submissions to that webform?
>>>> http://surveys.services.openoffice.org/surveys/index.php?sid=31881
>>>
>>> I've contacted the person who I think was responsible before.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually wondering if and how we should review those, versus simply
>>>> asking people to start contacting ooo-dev@ about requests from the
>>>> Apache side.
>>>
>>> That might depend on the number of requests that have accumulated in
>>> recent weeks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In particular, with the transfer of the OOo marks, how do we (as in,
>>>> this PPMC and trademarks@) handle any permissions or licensing of
>>>> "OpenOffice.org"? Especially since that mark primarily refers to a
>>>> product that we - the ASF - do not actually distribute?
>>>
>>> Many of these request are sent by journalists (e.g. providing OOo as
>>> part of an open source DVD as magazine add) and authors (e.g. screen
>>> shots for a publication). Another large group are individual open source
>>> enthusiasts who just want to put the OOo logo on their website to link
>>> the download page. IMHO, it would be easiest to point everyone on this
>>> list, let them briefly summarize their concern and then giving them a
>>> preliminary permission. Next, they can send us the results of using the
>>> OOo logo or trademark, so we can make a final decisions while having the
>>> real context available.
>>>
>>> best regards,
>>> peter
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Shane
>>>>
>>>> On 7/19/2011 12:51 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/18/2011 10:37 PM, Peter Junge wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still getting requests now and again from persons who want to
use
>>>>>> the trademark OpenOffice.org for various reasons. In former times
I
>>>>>> have been pointing them to a web form that Oracle was providing.
So,
>>>>>> my questions are:
>>>>>> - Is the OOo trademark already with Apache?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oracle legal is currently working with ASF on the transfer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - If yes, I recall I have to forward them to trademarks@apache.org,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>> - If not, is Oracle still taking on such requests?
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these types of requests are on hold at Oracle. The process should
>>>>> be moved over to Apache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + Do requesters still have to use the web form?
>>>>>> Or, is there any interims process?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at this time - and - this should make it over to the Apache side
of
>>>>> things in reasonably short order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Peter
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message