incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Amazon Download of Apache OpenOffice 3.4
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:07:13 GMT
Hi,

On 12-09-19, at 03:10 , Issac Goldstand <issac@volo-net.com> wrote:

> On 17/09/2012 19:01, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> 
>> 8. Going through the one-click purchase of the $0.00 software, I was not sent the
executable.  Instead, I was sent an "Amazon OpenOffice 34 by Apache" downloader executable.
 I ran it.  It is a simple dialog with a progress bar, the gull button, and a message that
the item can be downloaded again from my software library. It downloads the software.  It
doesn't say where.
>> 
>> This name is a branding issue that must be fixed immediately.
>> 
>> This should probably be handled by Shane as VP of branding.
>> 
> I kinda  doubt it.  Shane can correct me if I'm way off here, but
> remember that the Apache license explicitly permits redistribution of
> software, so in general you have 2 big categories of downloads:
> 
> <IANAL>
> 
> 1) Folks redistributing the exact artifacts calling the "Apache
> OpenOffice" - while this is technically a trademark infringement, the
> nature of channels which would distribute like this is usually not
> something that the foundation and/or project would be overly concerned
> about; after all, it's just like another mirror - it's still the exact
> same software in the same box (or close enough to not matter, although
> packaging changes would certainly be a valid reason for concern), so the
> worst that would normally happen there is a slap on the wrist if they
> don't have the correct trademark notices on the page, and we noticed it.
> 
> 2) Folks redistributing the exact artifacts or modified artifacts
> calling them something other than "Apache OpenOffice" (or other
> trademarks that we own, like old OOo trademarks), in which case the
> license also permits it, since they're not claiming to "be" AOO
> (although use of *our* gulls can be an issue)..  This covers all of the
> eBay offers, all of the bundled download offers, and whatever else might
> annoy us.  I'm pretty sure that such artifacts can be "based on AOO" or
> "Powered by AOO" or the like, too, without any issue, as long as there's
> a correctly worded trademark notice for Apache and AOO alongside it...
> 
> </IANAL>
> 
>  Issac
> 

Well, these points are fairly self-evident and stuff that's common: that's good. But where
then do we stand now with Amazon downloads? Or for that matter, say other "app marketplace"
downloads?

Put another way: Whose remit is this? Is this something that Apache does independent of AOO
or any other similar project, top level or no?
Or is it something that we, AOO(i), non-top level (albeit wishful), do in accordance with
Apache, so as to preserve trademark and copyright sanity and keep everyone more or less happy
or grumpy?

Louis
Mime
View raw message