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 20:05:32 GMT
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Donald Harbison <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:
>> On 2012-01-04 9:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 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.
>> ...snip...
>> The whole point of "Powered By" is that we allow broad and simple useage
>> of a *related* logo to third parties under certain conditions, but we
>> reserve rights to the official primary project logo to ourselves.
>> This ensures that when people see the official primary logo, they are
>> thinking of Apache OpenOffice provided by the ASF.  And when they see the
>> "Powered By AOO" or similar logo, they'll think of Apache OpenOffice, and
>> know that it's a related product, but is not Apache OpenOffice (just based
>> on).
>> Note that "Powered By" is only a suggested separator phrase, trademarks@is happy
to review requests for other naming styles.  "Based On", "Built
>> With", etc. might be potentially good alternatives.
>> what about 'Apache OpenOffice the FooBar Edition' ? FooBar = 3rd party
> added stuff licensed other than AL2; e.g. GPL, commercially, whatever.
> Would encourage ecosystem growth while carrying the parent brand up front,
> instead of tucked in back with a 'powered by AOO logo'.

I think that is what the legacy product did for distros.  So there was
" Novell Edition", which was distributed on SUSE.  The
idea is it was actually, maybe with some security
patches, but not a different product.

So it is fuzzy to me.

On the one hand we have things that are definitely derivative products
in the sense that they transform our release into something else.
What we did in the past with Symphony is a example.  RedOffice might
be another.  It is a new product, based on OpenOffice.

And then there are the cases where someone merely repackages the code
to make it more conveniently available for users of a distro to

And then there are things in the middle, where it is the core product,
unchanged, but aggregated with other stuff, like more templates, clip
art, extensions, etc.  That is what StarOffice was, right?

It doesn't make sense to me that all of the above must use a different
name than "OpenOffice", since some of them are exactly equal to
OpenOffice, just changing by distribution or packaging mechanism.

For example, once Pedro has a BSD port working, and is ready to
distribute it, what would it be called?  "BSD Office"?  Or could it be
called "Apache OpenOffice, BSD Edition"   That is a good example of a

Then you have cases where the code is not even recompiled but it is
just repackaged for a different distro.


>> - Shane

View raw message