incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: selling open office
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:54:54 GMT
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.
>

I don't see how this would have helped with Team OOo.  Surely, the
logo issue was only a small part of the problem, a very small part.
Even if we had a "powered by logo", there would have been the other
issues that were entirely irreconcilable with any reasonable Apache or
project trademark policy, such as the name of their organization and
the tenor of their fundraising efforts.  So not a very good example,
IMHO.

Maybe a better example would be the FreeBSD port?  That does not have
the extraneous issues that we had with TOO.

> I'm starting to think that the lack of a "powered by" logo and policy
> might be a blocker for the 3.4 release. I'd like to hear Shanes
> thoughts on this (as a mentor first, rather than as VP Trademarks).
>

Current policy is on the website.  Using the trademarks requires PPMC
permission and this is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  Hopefully
we'll get to something more documented, 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.

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.

-Rob

> Ross

Mime
View raw message