incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:51:08 GMT
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Gianluca Turconi
<inbox@letturefantastiche.com> wrote:
> Rob Weir ha scritto:
>>
>> 3) We can link to (but not host) 3rd party builds and distributions
>> based on our source code releases.  These 3rd party builds could
>> include GPL/LPGL items.  If you look at a typically Apache project,
>> like Subversion, you see a large number of links to externally hosted
>> binaries, for platform ports as well as enhanced versions:
>> http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
>
> So, in order to include LGPL/GPL linguistic tools, the binaries should be
> hosted and, I presume, distributed externally from Apache infrastructure.
>
> Does this fact affect in any way the use of the Apache OOo brand?
>
> Is a fair use of the brand compiling and distributing a binary that includes
> vanilla OOo code + linguistic tools while labeling it "Apache
> OpenOffice.org"?
>

If you look at the SVN example, the modified versions are not called
"Apache Subversion".  They are called things like, SlikSVN, VisualSVN,
Win32Svn.  But the straight ports do keep the name "Subversion".

Since Apache owns the trademark, any use of it to describe 3rd party
products would need Apache's permission.  My guess is the overall goal
is to prevent brand dilution and to avoid confusing the user.

The Apache trademark guidelines are here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/

-Rob

> Regards,
>
> Gianluca
>
> --
> Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
> fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
> http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
>
>

Mime
View raw message