Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of luispo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\))
Subject: Re: Amazon Download of Apache OpenOffice 3.4
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Louis_Su=E1rez-Potts?= <luispo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50596FCB.3000906@volo-net.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:07:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <908BC7CE-6444-4813-98B2-507E43527735@gmail.com>
References: <00cd01cd937a$af7fbd90$0e7f38b0$@acm.org>
 <42698FDF-480D-4227-A0DA-835332B8DD95@comcast.net>
 <50596FCB.3000906@volo-net.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org

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:
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> This name is a branding issue that must be fixed immediately.
>>=20
>> This should probably be handled by Shane as VP of branding.
>>=20
> 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:
>=20
> <IANAL>
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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...
>=20
> </IANAL>
>=20
>  Issac
>=20

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=