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 17:23:25 GMT
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Raphael Bircher
<rbircher_aoo@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> Am 29.02.12 17:48, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Pedro Giffuni<pfg@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW;
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/29/12 07:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> For FreeBSD we will not be rebranding so the idea will be more
>>> in the lines of "Apache OpenOffice powered by FreeBSD" and
>>> not the other way around.
>>>
>> But the question is where do we draw the line?
>>
> Why not? would you do the same politic as the Mozilla Foundation, with the
> Ice(animal) on Debian? Apache httpd is also called Apache httpd on any
> distro. Why AOO should go a different way?
>
> If distros ship a more or less clean version, they should be able to use the
> main brand.. If the packagers are AOO Commiter, I see realy no problem here.
> If the packagers are no commiter we may should be informated about the
> Version.

I wasn't making a statement or recommendation on where the line should
be drawn.  I'm just pointing out the kinds of questions that will
arise.  We can either continue to take this case-by-case, or reach
consensus on a policy that takes a default position on one or more of
these cases.

On the one hand we have companies, like one that used our logo and
name at openoffice.com that was distributing OpenOffice bundled with
bloat-ware.  We've seen companies selling premium paid support for
OpenOffice but then just sending the users to the community support
forums.

I think we want to have a policy that avoids abuses like that.  But at
the same time have a policy that permits uses that benefit the
community.

I am confident that we would do the right thing in these cases if we
decided case-by-case.  But that is laborious.

And I am confident that if we wrote a haphazard policy, it would do
more harm than good, since the companies that want to abuse the
trademarks will find loopholes in whatever policy we state and use our
policies to defend themselves against claims of infringement.
Remember, they are not accidental infringers.  They are doing this
intentionally.  They are motivated.  They have an incentive.  They are
doing this for the money.

So I think the sweet spot is to have enough of a formal policy that
takes care of the high-volume requests, like CD's, fan websites, etc.
And then rely on the PMC to make good calls for the remaining cases,
which are hopefully few.  In other words, giving the PMC discretion
for the "stuff in the middle" is not a bad thing.  We're motivated.
We have an incentive. We're doing it for the community.

-Rob

>>>
>>> Pedro.
>
>

Mime
View raw message