incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Powered by AOO (was Re: selling open office)
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:55:06 GMT
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