incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:44:12 GMT


On 06/14/2012 01:53 PM, drew wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew<drew@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> OK.  I didn't notice the significance of the ND.  That might work.
>> But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the
>> artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc.
>>
>
> Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and
> for the iso image as a whole."
>
> Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about
> the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to
> the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the
> morning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> //drew
>
>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
Thanks to both of you for all this enlightening information, esp the 
clause about trademarks in ALv2. I'll need to take a closer look at the 
LGPL etc to see how this is covered there. I think I have a much better 
idea of what is actually going on now, and will just drop this thread.

It would be nice to provide our users with a bit more user-friendly 
information so I will think about all this and visit in a few days.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
        -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Mime
View raw message