incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Powered by AOO (was Re: selling open office)
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:19:06 GMT
I agree with Ross that the Powered by Logo and Policy is needed.

I won't have time to say more for a day or two,

Regards,
Dave

On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 29 February 2012 13:48, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ross Gardler
>> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>> On 29 February 2012 12:54, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Ross Gardler
>>>> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28 February 2012 20:01, Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> There was talk of a "Powered by AOO" logo.  Maybe this should be
>>>>>> propogated up to the foundation to have an "Apache Inside" logo?
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, that is not how it (currently) works around here. Providing a
>>>>> foundation wide "Apache inside" logo doesn't seem to make sense to me.
>>>>> It means that huge numbers of Java applications would have "Apache
>>>>> inside" because of the almost universal use of the various Commons
>>>>> libraries. I can't speak for the Trademarks committee but I very much
>>>>> doubt they would want to take on managing such a situation. If you
>>>>> want to challenge that opinion the right place to do it is
>>>>> trademarks@a.o
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is critical that AOO recognises that each project is responsible
>>>>> for their own trademark management beyond the standard Apache policy.
>>>>> Trademarks@ is there to provide support when necessary, but this PPMC
>>>>> is responsible for day to day management. The AOO project ***needs***
>>>>> "powered by" or whatever. Without one it is extremely difficult to
>>>>> have satisfactory arrangements with organisations like Team OOo. The
>>>>> project mentors have been saying this since the very beginning of the
>>>>> project yet nobody has yet created such a logo and accompanying
>>>>> policy.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ...
>> 
>> Ross, the part you conveniently snipped here was where I said the PPMC
>> does have a policy here.  It is on the website.  Using the trademarks
>> requires PPMC permission and this is evaluated on a case-by-case
>> basis.  This would include any one who wanted to use a "powered by
>> logo".  Our policy is that would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
>> This is not lack of policy.  This is just that default policy that the
>> vast majority of TLP and podlings have today.
> 
> OK, sorry for snipping that. So can we have a powered by logo? I'm
> saying policy *plus* logo.
> 
>> 
>> And this does not in any way prevent or hinder someone from reusing
>> the 3.4 release. Take a look at any other Apache release, say
>> Subversion.  They have plenty of 3rd party ports and derived products.
>>  But they are not using a "powered by logo". I don't see a problem
>> here.
> 
> Yes, but I'm not talking about Subversion. I'm talking about AOO where
> the need for "powered by" has come up in a number of specific cases.
> 
>> 
>> Note: I'm certainly open to such a logo if you, or anyone else, wants
>> to contribute one.  But I don't think this is a priority right now,
>> and the actions of other PPMC members suggests that they agree.
> 
> Fair enough. When does it become a priority? I'm concerned that it's a
> catch 22. However, if you are correct and the PPMC is not concerned
> about this then fair enough, it's not a blocker.
> 
> Ross
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Maybe a better example would be the FreeBSD port?  That does not have
>>>> the extraneous issues that we had with TOO.
>>> 
>>> Sure, if you prefer.
>>> 
>>>> but the advice we received
>>>> early on was to handle these case-by-case for a while, so we get a
>>>> sense of what kinds of requests will be coming in and what kinds of
>>>> issues arise.  Writing a policy in a vacuum without that experience
>>>> would be folly, IMHO.
>>> 
>>> Agreed. But the advice from at least three mentors, possibly more, on
>>> a number of specific cases has been "use a powered by policy". Each
>>> time it has been mentioned it seems to have been met with general
>>> agreement (at least no objections).
>>> 
>>>> In any case, if you are uncertain as to whether there is a podling
>>>> release policy related to "powered by" logos, I'd be happy to raise
>>>> this on the general@incubator list.  Surely, if there were such a
>>>> policy, written or unwritten, someone on the IPMC would be able to
>>>> point us to previous invocations of that rule.
>>> 
>>> I am not saying anything about release policies. I'm suggesting that
>>> the lack of a "powered by AOO" logo and policy might be considered a
>>> blocker for the 3.4 release. I'm suggesting that the provision of such
>>> might simplify the reuse of AOO 3.4. That's the goal, right? The IPMC
>>> does not have a policy relating to "powered by" and its relationship
>>> to releases. It is entirely up to the PPMC to decide what is/is not a
>>> blocker.
>>> 
>>> The trademarks committee does have guidance on "powered by"
>>> approaches. There is a specifc FAQ entry on the powered by topic, I'm
>>> not sure it has ever been pointed to explicitly so here you go: "May I
>>> use Apache Powered by... marks or logos in software product names or
>>> logos?" http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#poweredby
>>> 
>>> Ross
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com


Mime
View raw message