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 01:58:51 GMT
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.

> 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.

> 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