incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Powered by AOO (was Re: selling open office)
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:33:12 GMT
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.
>>
>

...

> 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

Mime
View raw message