incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: May I use "" and "Apache Incubator" logos on CD
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:38:44 GMT
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 Jan 2012 12:26:59 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Andrea Pescetti <>
> wrote:
>> > Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>> >>> May I use "" and "Apache Incubator" logos on
>> >>> CD?...
>> >>
>> >> As we've done in the past, we seek lazy consensus from the PPMC on
>> >> these requests and then send our recommendation to the Branding VP
>> >> (Shane) for the final decision. So let's wait 72-hours and see if
>> >> there are any concerns.
>> >
>> > No objections at all, but I would generalize the question and turn it
>> > into a FAQ: surely we can't expect to have to approve logo requests for
>> > every CD distribution initiative, so we should probably reach the
>> > consensus (and consult Shane) on generically allowing the
>> > logo, and the logo that will eventually replace it, on CDs containing
>> > the unmodified software as released by Apache (a more proper wording can
>> > probably be found, but you get the concept).
>> So, hypothetically, if someone wanted to produce CD's that contained
>> literal copies of AOO and put the logo on them, would they then be
>> allowed to sell them on eBay, and to show a photograph of the CD with
>> the logo?  That would be allowed if we gave blanket permission.
>> Also, would someone be allowed to use the logo for CD's that they sell
>> from a website where they claim that OpenOffice is in danger and that
>> they are collecting donations in order to rescue OpenOffice?
>> It might make sense to handle these requests case-by-case for now,
>> until we have a better sense of what kinds of problems we will
>> encounter.
> Lets stick with CTR, one thing that history has shown us is that there are a
> lot of eyes out there, if someone is misusing the brand, it gets back to us
> pretty fast.  Far too much time is being spent on this sort of nonproductive
> effort where we could simply be using the eyes of the wider community to keep
> us in touch.

That is not current ASF policy.  We currently require explicit
permission to use the loog. If you want to change policy, I'd
recommend starting a new thread on that, so your thoughts are not
buried in this one.

As for "far too much time is being spent", I'd draw your attention to
the fact that this is the first logo request we've received for a CD
in 6 months, and perhaps only the 4th logo request we've received at
all.  All our current process requires is lazy consensus, e.g., a 72
hour opportunity for PPMC members to object.  And then VP, Branding
permission based on our recommendation.  So this is neither difficult
nor time consuming.  And if anyone thinks it is, I'm happy to remove
that objection by volunteering to manage the workflow for this myself
for this project, something I'm essentially already doing.

> Hands-off worked in the past, sure there were breaches, but in terms of the
> greater picture the numbers were very small.  The easier we can make it for
> the brand to be out in the wild the better, if only from a brand recognition
> point of view.  If we want to have absolute control over how and where the
> brand is used then it will not get the spread it needs without the expense of
> paid advertising.
> Not much point in having a a brand if we are the only ones looking at it or
> recognising it.

That is an argument for giving permission broadly.  It is not an
argument for giving permission without review.  Think of this as an
opportunity for engagement with the person or group wanting to use the
logo.  By asking our permission we're introduced.  We have the
opportunity to explain our preferred ways to use our branding.  We can
answer their questions.  We can perhaps point them to other forms of
the logo,. Maybe we identify ways of cross promoting their activity.
It opens up a two-way conversation.  It is not a bad thing.

>> > The old policy, if I recall correctly, was to allow this kind of usage
>> > and a generic usage for "community activities".
> indeed
> Cheers
> GL
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >  Andrea.

View raw message