incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: OOo electronic distribution
Date Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:36:59 GMT


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:

> old business...see Rob's responses below
> 
> Would it be OK to extract some of Rob's responses and add them (in a general way) to
the modified --
> 
> http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/
> 
> page?
> 
> Maybe as sort of a general FAQ on redistributing?
> 
> But with a caveat that ooo-dev should still be contacted.
> 
> At least this might forego addressing the same sorts of issues again and again.

+1

Regards,
Dave
> 
> On 04/03/2012 04:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Issac Goldstand<issac@volo-net.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> At ACNA I mentioned to Shane that the company that I work for was
>>> interested in re-distributing OO but was concerned over the legalities of
>>> doing so - specifically regarding trademark use.  After explaining the
>>> company and project in detail he said that he thought it could work out,
>>> and directed me to poll the podling as a prerequisite for getting trademark
>>> approval from the ASF.  Although that project (at work) was frozen by the
>>> time I returned from Vancouver, it's come up in discussion again, so I'd
>>> like to ask the podling for permission to use the trademarks and guidance
>>> on how to best keep the podling's interests in mind.
>>> 
>>> The company focuses on monetized installers, similar to those found in
>>> Oracle's JAVA windows installer or on CNET downloads (which is actually our
>>> product), where we offer an opt-in bundled software download as part of the
>>> installer.
>>> 
>>> Currently, our team has come up with mockups for the installer and landing
>>> page for the download, which I'd be happy to provide in the form of
>>> attachments on-list, or off-list (or on a wiki if that's the "right way to
>>> do it").
>>> 
>>> 
>> Hi Isaac,
>> 
>> Here are my personal thoughts.  Don't take this as a final decision by the
>> project, but just me weighing in, and hoping that other project members do
>> as well.
>> 
>> First, thanks for asking.  Not everyone does that, though they should.
>> 
>> Links to your mock-up would be great.
>> 
>> For background, I would note that some of our users have been confused but
>> such "monitized installers" before, and we have received complaints.
>> (However, to be fair I don't think they were from your company).
>> 
>> Since we cannot control the quality or the user experience for modified
>> installs, and the experience for the user would differ from our released
>> OpenOffice, it would probably be confusing to the user to call your product
>> just "OpenOffice.org" or "Apache OpenOffice" without further distinction.
>> IMHO, one of the attributes of our brand is that it is non-commercial,
>> free, open source software.
>> 
>> So I think you should consider another primary name that distinguish your
>> offering, while truthfully indicating that it is based on OpenOffice.   For
>> example, "Super Office, powered by Apache OpenOffice", where "Super Office"
>> could be any name of your choice that you have rights to use.  That might
>> be the name of your overall bundle.
>> 
>> So if there is a link that says, "Click here to download OpenOffice.org",
>> and that link does not actually point directly to an unmodified release of
>> OpenOffice.org, then that is a problem.  If it says, "Click here to
>> download the Super Office Bundle, powered by OpenOffice.org (TM)", then
>> that might be OK.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> What we want to know, specifically is:
>>> 1) How to brand the product?  Given we're talking about 3.3.0 (at least
>>> until 3.4.0 happens), we thought to simply brand it OpenOffice.org  Should
>>> we continue that line, or use Apache OpenOffice?  If the latter, should we
>>> include "Incubating" and the logos set out at https://cwiki.apache.org/**
>>> confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**AOOLogo+proposal<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOOLogo+proposal>or
not?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 3.3 should be called "OpenOffice.org", 3.4 should be called "Apache
>> OpenOffice".
>> 
>> 
>>> 2) We'd like pointers on the right place (if any) to include (TM) or (R)
>>> or anything else both on the landing page and on the installer.
>>> 
>> 
>> "OpenOffice.org" would be (R).  "Apache OpenOffice" would be (TM)
>> 
>> Acknowledgment of the trademarks is key.  Also, if users might be confused
>> as to the source of the bundle, a disclaimer might be appropriate, e.g.,
>> "Super Office is a product of Foo Corporation and is not affiliated with or
>> endorsed by the Apache Software Foundation.  "OpenOffice.org" is a
>> trademark of the Apache Software Foundation."
>> 
>> 3) Other general pointers that you have.
>>> 
>>> Policy is here:  http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>> 
>> My recommendation would be first to resolve the name question and how to
>> avoid users confusing the bundled software with an Apache source or
>> endorsement. That is the key question.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>>  Issac
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "So let it rock, let it roll
> Let the bible belt come and save my soul
> Hold on to sixteen as long as you can
> Changes come around real soon make us woman and men."
>          -- "Jack and Diane", John Mellencamp

Mime
View raw message