incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:21:15 GMT
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 AM, eric b <> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> Note that this does not become your product's name.  It is a logo, like
>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or are
>> based on an Apache product.
> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache
> websites should use the logo.
> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But not
> the one.

I'm not sure we're authorized (as a project) to permit use of the
Apache logo.  I suspect not.  But we are able to create a "powered by
logo" that is distinct from the "product" logo, for 3rd party products
to use.  The idea is to avoid diluting the value of the core product
logo, but still allow 3rd party apps to express their use of the code,
and for them to help us raise awareness of the brand.

Think of it this way:  Did the "Intel Inside" program help or hurt
Intel and the value of their brand?  I don't think it hurt them.

>> So it allows you to grow your own brand while accurately expressing your
>> use of the Apache code. We'd need to think how this could work with products
>> based on legacy OOo releases, pre Apache.
> This is a bad track. Indeed, people are already completly confused.

We should certainly try to avoid confusion.

> At one recent event, I discussed with some around 20 average french people
> (randomly, average users, not following story), and the
> result is :
> - Oracle is the current owner
> - is no longer free and Oracle killed it
> - LibreOffie is the new name of
> - Apache OpenOffice is yet another fork, nobody knows and nobody cares.
> It took me a long time to explain them what happened in meantime.
> I invite everybody to repeat the test, and share what they obtain.

The above may be true.  But I don't think it is caused by logo confusion.

And think of it this way.  What helps the brand more:

A) White Label Office making no mention of OpenOffice


B) White Label Office having a "Powered by" logo?

>> But I think something similar could be discussed.
>> If we wanted, we could also include a link on the main download page,
>> pointing too White Label Office, but we'd need to be fair and offer the same
>> kind of link to anyone else who was based on OOo, and who was respecting the
>> trademarks, e.g., LibreOffice, Symphony, etc.
> IMHO, the right decision is to NOT add external links at all : easy to
> manage, and always fair for all.
> To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one
> NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the main
> porting project web page. It was a disaster for
> because people were confused, and thought NeoOffice was the
> "official" Mac OS X port. This way, NeoOffice derivated a long time the
> porting project forces, including donations who were derivated too.
> The case is exactly the same with LibreOffice today, and I strongly suggest
> to retain the lesson of the past, and to not redo the same mistake.

Avoiding past mistakes is important.  But is there something that
could be done that promotes the larger ecosystem as well as avoids
confusion with users?

For example, look at the Apache Subversion download site:

It has links to many 3rd party derivatives of the Apache product.  But
I think they help avoid confusion by having a prominent disclaimer on
the webpage:

"The Apache Subversion project does not officially endorse or maintain
any binary packages of the Subversion software. However, volunteers
have created binary packages for different distributions and
platforms, and as a convenience, we maintain a list of links to them

> Defend the name, and control the logo usage, is ESSENTIAL. Just wondering
> how long it will take to the Apache people, to understand that it was the
> worse decision ever to rename** into Apache OpenOffice
> (instead of Apache, far better).

I agree that we need to protect and control the brand.  But part of
that control can be promoting specific logos for specific purposes, in
ways that support the overall brand.

1) A logo that is only used on the website and in official Apache releases

2) A related, but distinct "powered by" or similar logo, that denotes
a product that is based on AOO

3) A related, but distinct "get AOO" or similar logo, that a supporter
can put on their website or blog to link to our download site

Our power is our ability to control use of the brand.  Preventing use
is one form of control.  But channeling use to beneficial patterns of
use can be even more powerful.


> Regards,
> Eric Bachard
> **I bet there are a lot of LibreOffice / TDF supporters in the list of the
> people who voted for the change.
> --
> qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids :
> L'association EducOOo :
> Blog :

View raw message