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 12:45:20 GMT
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, 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.
>>
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish is to make it easier for the end user to
> distinguish between things they need to ask permission to use -- a finite
> set of actually "trademarked" items I'm assuming (but it could be my
> understanding of that term is just wrong), and things they don't -- because
> they fall under some licensing -- LGPL, PDL, or ALv2.
>

Something can be both trademarked and be under a LPGL, PDL or ALv2
license.  The license deals with copyright, which is different from
trademark.  These are two different species of intellectual property.
(Patents would be a third species, but that is not an issue in this
case)

The license might allow someone to copy the logo, modify it,
redistribute, etc., just like an OSS license allows someone to do the
same with source code.  But if there is also a trademark claimed on
the logo, that restricts the things someone can do with the logo.
These restrictions are in addition to whatever restrictions are there
per the license.

For example, take our main project logo.  If that were available under
a permissive license, someone could copy, modify, redistribute that
logo.  They might be able to print it out, put it in a frame and hang
it on their wall, for example.  But they would not be able to put it
on a website advertising "Open Office downloads" where the website was
actually downloading other software,  The trademark protects a symbol
associated with the origin of a product.

Think for example, of the controlled appellations in the EC,
associated with wines and cheese and other food products.  They ensure
that the use of the term "Parmigiano-Reggiano" is used for only a
specific kind of cheese from a specific region of Italy.  No one else
can legally use that name.  It is like a trademark, protecting a name
that defines the origin of a product.

> So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but
> not limited to".
>
> Why isn't this set limited?
>

The set is limited by what we actually use in the project to identify
the product.  But these logos can occur in many different variations
and combinations. I don't think we can enumerate them all.  And there
is risk if we claim to have listed them all, but then miss one, or
fail to keep the list up to date.

>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Right, which I why I wanted to point them to just the items in
>  /images/AOO_logos
>
> so they know exactly which ones they need to request permission for.
>
>  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.
>>
>
> No,it doesn't. I'm sorry -- maybe I was too confusing. It's ONLY the
> trademarked items that we consider logos. We need to have them continue to
> request permission for those.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> We OK -- that's what I'm trying to clarify. I saw the page for "Get It
> Here".
>
>
>
>> 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'm thinking more in terms of expediting uses of the other artwork
> elements. Or do you think this isn't necessary given the license statements?
>

Maybe it would help if we could discuss a specific artwork file?  Is
there a good example of what that you think should not require
permission?


>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Yes, but I think people are getting confused about what the logos
> are...this was kind of my point here.
>
>
>>  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.
>>
>
> Well this is one of those weird areas. The other artwork we have out there
> has licenses that indicate folks can indeed modify them -- the artwork.
> I would LOVE if Drew would contribute his artwork. The artwork itself might
> be licensed with ALv2, I guess? or not...this is really the crux of what we
> need to make easier for users.
>
> If everyone feels its already as simple as it can be, well that's OK too.
>
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>> > - -
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
>> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Mime
View raw message