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 17:54:43 GMT
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:
>>
>> 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.
>

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.

> 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