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: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:46:20 GMT
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Kevin Grignon
<kevingrignon.oo@gmail.com> wrote:
> KG01 - See comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> 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
>> >
>>
>> KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused
> an interested party would be. While we can maintain living wiki docs that


Actually, we get many requests, sometimes several a week, per the
requirements of that exact trademark.html page.  Those who deal in
trademarks, at a professional level, know to look for the trademark
page and know what to ask for.  So for those whose business depends on
getting this right, ranging from book publishers, to education
services websites to movie studies (and yes, that has happened) this
information is helpful.

As a 2nd category, the random average user or developer who wants to
promote OpenOffice, they typically don't know or care enough to even
ask permission.  On the other hand, they are probably causing little
harm.  But if they are not looking for permission, then having
detailed pages explaining this stuff probably won't help them.  They
are not finding what they aren't looking for.

And as the 3rd category we have a small number of websites that are
intentionally abusing our trademarks in order to lure users in, to
sell them copies of OpenOffice, in some cases adulterated copies, that
have bundled adware applications.  They are another category that is
not seeking permission to use the trademarks.

And maybe there is a 4th category, a user who is over-scrupulous and
ask permission for things that really don't need permission, things
that would be covered under what is called "nominative use", similar
to "fair use" with copyright.

And then there is the 5th category, users who are asking for
permission, for CD covers, etc.

So for the 1st and 3rd categories, we need a solid statement that we
take trademarks seriously and that explicit permission is requirement
to use them, and give information for how to request that permission.
That is what the pros need to make their requests, and it gives notice
to those who might try to abuse the trademarks,  I think we have that,
both at the ASF website, and on the poding website.

And then the 2nd and 4th category, education is the best tool.

The last category, that is where we need to be careful.  If we give
blanket permission for unrestricted use of logos, then that is an open
door for category 3 users, and removes options for seeking the
discontinuation of their use of our trademarks.  "We're not doing
anything wrong.  The project said we could all use the logo.  They
never said I couldn't use it on my adware/bundle of OpenOffice."

So there is a natural tension between desires to reduce the paperwork
and procedures of permission request tracking and processing, and our
desire to discourage abuse of the trademarks.   Making it easy for
everyone to use the logos also makes it easier for some bad players to
use the logos to confuse our users.

One way of resolving this is to make a clear distinction between
product logos and community logos.  We would have a logo that we and
only we use to mark the origin of our software and our website.  And
that logo would be used nowhere else.  And then we can have distinct
community logos, perhaps thematically linked to the product logo, that
we make available more freely.

-Rob

> captures this information, we could also consider creating a logo usage
> package, include guidance, examples of correct usage, partner guidance and
> the actual logo assets. Everything could be put into a single-source,
> versioned, downloadable package. A partner could download the package, then
> review the guidance and get to work consuming and promoting our product -
> which is the goal.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>> > - -
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
>> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>

Mime
View raw message