incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:55:49 GMT
Again, I want to drive home the difference between questions of law
(which we forward to attorneys) and questions of policy (which are
determined by the appropriate Officer of the ASF).

If you wish to advocate for a change to the Branding Policy, perhaps
the best way is to propose a patch to the following:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html

If you wish to either propose a change or get clarification of a legal
policy, try opening an issue or starting a discussion:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/

With that, on to your questions.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> How are these for questions:
>
> Are there trademark or brand dilution issues with "Apache™OpenOffice" (project) in
conjunction with "OpenOffice.org™" (product)?

Question of law.  Ultimately will require consultation with counsel.

> 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?

Question of policy.  Where's your patch?  :-)

The latter (complete with the smiley) is a common way in the ASF to
suggest that you participate.  Read the Branding Policy linked to
above.  Identify what parts are problematic and what needs to be
changed.  While nothing is cast in stone, be prepared to defend your
arguments.  Huge retraining?  Care to quantify this?

Was there a huge retraining when Sun Open Office became Oracle Open Office?

Note: I am trying my best not to take a position here, but rather to
help you formulate your questions and proposals.

>>> 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.

Not sure I see a question (yet) there.

If a project decides to list a set of places which are worth
exploring, and provide links to those places, that generally won't be
a problem.  Links to strongly CopyLeft (e.g. AGPL3) and proprietary
products are fine to the extent that they are consistent with our
status as a non-profit (the former is not a problem, the latter may or
may not be depending on the kind and extent of the links).

If a project decides to create a canonical place to find things like
extensions and templates then we will expect the (P)PMC to demonstrate
active oversight of that repository.

> Regards,
> Dave

- Sam Ruby

Mime
View raw message