incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <d...@baseanswers.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:33:14 GMT
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 
> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew<drew@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>
 wrote:
> >>>> cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> >>>> Usage
> >>>>
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >>>>
> >>>> First item, logos:
> >>>>
> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >>>>
> >>>> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html"
page,
> >>>> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> >>>>
> >>>> -or- the older web logo
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I would like to do a few things:
> >>>>
> >>>> - also put
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> >>>>
> >>>> in
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >>>>
> >>>> Change
> >>>>
> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >>>>
> >>>> -- to --
> >>>>
> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> >>>>
> >>>> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >>>>
> >>>> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
remove)
> >>>>
> >>>> I will also change the logos area in:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >>>>
> >>>> and list all possible logos in:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> >>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> >>> to", is fine.
> >>>
> >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> >>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> >>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
> >>>
> >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> >>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
> >>>
> >>>> Second item, other artwork:
> >>>>
> >>>> All artwork in:
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >>>>
> >>>> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> >>>> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to
use and
> >>>> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this,
I think
> >>>> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual
logo
> >>>> and nothing else):
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> >>> to use the trademark.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> >>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> >>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> >>> to confuse or lure users.
> >>>
> >>>> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify
an
> >>>> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> >>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
> >>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> >>> keep that info all in one place.
> >>>
> >>>> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want
to
> >>>> use (either LGPL or PDL)
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> >>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
you
> >>>> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as
the
> >>>> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> >>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object
as
> >>>> you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- end of items ---
> >>>>
> >>>> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
various
> >>>> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
> >>>> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
> >>>> aligned before I can complete that.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
> >>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
> >>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
> >>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
> >>> use in certain situations.
> >>>
> >>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
> >>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
> >>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
> >>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
> >>> trademark.
> >>>
> >>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
> >>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
> >>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
> >>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
> >>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
> >>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
> >>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
> >>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
> >>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
> >>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
> >>> not include our logos.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Rob, Kay, et al
> >>
> >> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
> >> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
> >> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
> >> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
> >> groups us however, whenever :)
> >>
> >> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
> >> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace
> >>
> >> _but_
> >>
> >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
> >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
> >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
> >>
> >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
> >>
> >> (bottom of back cover :)
> >>
> >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
> >> as a whole.
> >>
> >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
> >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >
> > The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
> > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
> > what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
> > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
> > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
> > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
> > not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
> >
> > Expressed another way:
> >
> > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
> >
> > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
> > elements that you have reused.
> >
> > 2) Your rights to your original creation.
> >
> > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
> >
> >
> > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
> >
> > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
> > You determine the license you want.
> >
> > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.
> >
> > But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
> > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
> >
> > #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
> > core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
> > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
> > your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
> > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
> > the "Get it here!" logo.
> >
> > Hopefully this makes sense.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> 
> Well given this response...more questions
> 
> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that 
> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though 
> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing 
> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) 
> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission 
> because of the logo inclusion?
> 
> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
> 
> 

Howdy Kay, Rob


Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.

Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.

Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
the trademarks with the project directly.

Least that is how I see it. 

Thanks for your feedback,

//drew


Mime
View raw message