Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kay.schenk@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksohbfqBDGdQtX8N-pH_U5C-FRFf6sRQU76q+TKQDtYQifQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4FD918CE.8050806@gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksohbfqBDGdQtX8N-pH_U5C-FRFf6sRQU76q+TKQDtYQifQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:06:19 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAGj32153+1Zx+rdhDcCb6vz9Ueqss6d3O0X8uebB6e5Rnfxz4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
From: Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b390f79fedb1bb604c265fb27

--485b390f79fedb1bb604c265fb27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.

So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but
not limited to".

Why isn't this set limited?


> 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?


>
> 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"

--485b390f79fedb1bb604c265fb27--