incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:12:27 GMT

On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>> 
>>> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
>>> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
>>> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
>>> / advisable to do in this special case.  That conversation could impact /
>>> inform the naming strategy for various parts of the project and I think it
>>> should happen soon.
>> 
>> Yes, please.
> 
> I'll forward the request.
> 
> As a general rule, it is generally best to start discussions such as
> this with one or more specific proposals.  Spending time discussing
> options that will ultimately be rejected by the community serves
> no-one.  My read is that there are people here who are against any
> proposal that includes .org; and that there are people here who are
> against any proposal that does NOT include .org.  This needs to be
> resolved by the PPMC.

How are these for questions:

Are there trademark or brand dilution issues with "Apache™OpenOffice" (project) in conjunction
with "OpenOffice.org™" (product)?

The two would be tied together with the feather and the seagulls with comparatively similar
banners and footers.

Are we allowed to call a product "OpenOffice.org™" or must it be "Apache ...." whether or
not there is a huge retraining of a huge market to the new name?

> 
>> Should the discussion also include the issue of whether it is permissible to host
extensions and templates with all kinds of licenses on an http://*.openoffice.org domain?
It happens now.
> 
> There are two parts to this.  The first part is whether or not it is
> legal to do so.  The second part is whether or not ASF policy would
> allow such.  To date we have never approved such.  A concrete example
> to illustrate the difference between the two: it would be 100% legal
> for us to host and distribute code licensed under the GPL on ASF
> infrastructure, but to date we have consistently declined to do so.
> 
> The only thing I will note is that your question is subtly different
> than the one I answered.  You asked a question about a domain that
> ultimately will be owned by the ASF.  I answered a question as to what
> could be hosted on ASF infrastructure.  The question as to whether
> those two questions are equivalent fundamentally is a policy question.
> Off the top of my head: solving this will ultimately require at least
> two parts: (1) finding somebody willing to host the extensions and
> templates, and (2) a clear way of distinguishing these portions of the
> site from those portions hosted by the ASF.  Even with these parts
> addressed, there may be liability questions that we need to resolve.
> That portion will definitely require input from ASF Counsel.

(1) An external host like OSUOSL.

(2) A third set of banners and footers distinguishing this third type of sight - "the extension
site"

Perhaps the TDF would be willing to share an extension and template database and then only
publish the FSF compatible licenses on their extension/template site?

Perhaps this database would have matrices that validate an extension or template's compatibility
with each of the codebases and versions including other downstreams than OpenOffice.org and
LibreOffice.

Regards,
Dave 


> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> D
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes, exactly!
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users
instead of asking
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> deeply involved people on this list, having very
subjective
>>>> interests in
>>>>>>>>>> one or the other direction.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing
speech.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache
way and I'd
>>>> welcome a comment from one of the mentors.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> See Daneese Cooper's emails.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything
Danese
>>>> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and
>>>> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she
is
>>>> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names
and
>>>> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are likely referring to this post then:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://s.apache.org/UxA
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and
the
>>>> websites - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want
>>>> to tie the branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow
>>>> us to isolate these elements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message