incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:43:02 GMT

Yes, is where migration and adjustments of current pages are posted for inspection and review until the cut-over 
of happens.  (There had been similar development images for the 
now cut-over forums and wiki.  Cut-over of the Bugzilla was done differently, 
because the Bugzilla definitely needs to be a pure property.) 
Review would be very helpful.  There is also much work to do to revise pages 
so that removed material does not leave chasms for users to fall into and to 
direct visitors to more-current information.

I agree that being an umbrella is probably unworkable since the branding of 
Apache will dominate almost all of it and I am not sure why 
someone else would want to hide their candle under that umbrella.

That is why I thought it important to raise the umbrella issue, since I think 
there have been fantasies about that, including in my head.  When I started to 
ponder how that could actually work, now that the migration seems to be in 
hand (with much work remaining), I began to question how it was even possible 
to do that considering that the featured product and support is to be releases 
of Apache (however named).

My thinking is that it is important to be friendly with other projects and to 
provide appropriate links and even referrals of folks to places where there 
particular situation and concerns are best addressed.  But the thrust of 
http:// * pages is going to be Apache and its 
OO.o legacy.

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry []
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 04:00
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding

Are you saying that the site is a prototype of the 
intended public site?

There is already an explanation of the project's status at the foot of that 
page.  Are you saying we should canvas different ways of expressing what is 
there now?

I understand that trademarks is a specialised subject.  We could still look at 
what is available and express views about the merits of the various logos, 
symbols and icons.  There are a number of pages in the old Wiki and in the old 
marketing and art projects. also has a section on 

I'm struggling to reconcile the 'umbrella' concept with use of the name 
'Apache Open Office' as the product brand.  I think that name would create 
confusion and be an obstacle to collaboration under the banner.


----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2011 12:53 PM
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
> I agree with Marcus about the umbrella use of the site.  However, I think it
> is important to stop crafting trademark notices.  There should be review of
> the notices that are being put at the bottom of http:// * 
> pages
> as site cutover happens, but it can only be what the legal and trademark 
> folks
> at ASF say is the proper wording.
> I recommend review of <> (not the intended
> public URL - this is a place for reviewing of migrated content before the 
> actual
> cut-over of http:// * content to Apache custody). What Dave 
> has
> at the bottom 3 lines seems quite close to factual, pending legal and
> trademark review. There also needs to be review of whether "registered
> trademark" and "trademark" and (r) vs TM are properly used with
> respect to Apache marks (including now) before live cut-over.
> There is also a rather long textual explanation proposed to be at the bottom
> of such pages.  Review of that here would be valuable, keeping in mind that 
> it
> must be all about the podling and incubation for now and speaking of a
> "product" of the incubator podling may be a bit dodgy.

> It might be cleaner to do that with fewer words and use the 
> feather+incubator
> image in the top banner to link to the Apache Podling Status
> page.  A text link in the bottom note would work also. It might be easier to
> keep that target page maintained and updated over time, along with providing
> the translations that folks are asking for as well. The note could be
> translated, perhaps.  I think translating trademark notices is trickier.  I
> notice that Oracle kept the bottom banner of pages in English regardless of
> the page content language.  See, e.g., <>.
> - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus (OOo) []
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 17:20
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
> Am 11/03/2011 12:32 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>  On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Terry<>
> wrote:
>>>  I gather that what you want to achieve is preservation of the
> 'name'
>>>  '' as a trademark and as an identifier.
> Eventually people
>>>  will know that the Apache product is derived from the old
>>>  software but the need to protect the old trademark will persist.
>>  It is one option.  I think it is worth discussing.  It might be a
>>  reasonable compromise that we can achieve consensus on, to use both
>>  names in some coherent way, like "Coca-Cola" and "Coke"
> are both
>>  trademarks for the same thing.
> I'm pretty sure we can find a way to use both.
>>>  I am hesitant to say that the Apache product is the software formerly
> known
>>>  as because LibreOffice can also make that claim.  I
> gather
>>>  that LibreOffice folk regard the Apache product as another fork of
>>>  I'm not certain of the history but I understand
> that
>>>  LibreOffice is the former go-oo but that was a fork of oo.o anyway.
>>  I would not hesitate to say that Apache is based on
>>  It is true statement.  If LO is offended by true statements than that
>>  is their problem, not ours.
> Yes, the history is done and the well-known fact are certain. But we can
> change the future and our way and behavior how to work together.
>>>  What about a statement along the lines " and Apache
> Open
>>>  Office[/Office/Suite] are {registered ?} trademarks of the Apache
> Software
>>>  Foundation which produces Apache Open Office {derived from oo.o}
> ?"
>>>  Something like that could be used as a subtitle.
>>  That sounds like a legal notice.  I think we want to discuss first the
>>  branding strategy.  Once we agree on that the legal notice will follow
>>  trivially.
>>  In any case, the important question is how we would use both
>>  trademarks in our marketing efforts.  Merely saying the trademarks
>>  exist is not really using them.  If we're not really using
>> as a trademark then eventually (3 years I think) it is
>>  considered abandoned.
> I repeat my suggestion on this list:
> Let's build a roof on "" for all Office suites
> that
> are based on Then the trademark is used often enough to
> keep the rights reserved.
> - and -
> Every peer should be happy as they can use this portal to give some
> information, to be a part of the Office family and to link back to their
> real project and product home.
> Marcus
>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>  From: Rob Weir<>
>>>>  To:
>>>>  Cc:
>>>>  Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 10:37 PM
>>>>  Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
>>>>  On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:12 PM,
> Terry<>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>    I agree that ownership of the '' brand
> should be
>>>>  preserved; allowing someone else to use it would create confusion.
>>>>  It is possible to have several trademarks in use at the same time.
>>>>  You see that in complex branding strategies for consumer products,
>>>>  where image is very important.  For example, the Coca Cola
> corporation
>>>>  protects "Coca Cola" (of course) but also
> "Coke" and several
>>>>  slogans like "Can't beat the real thing" and
> "I'd like to buy the
>>>>  world a Coke".  I assume the corporation has complex internal
> rules that
>>>>  determine how advertisers use use each name in the proper context.
>>>>  Would something like this make sense for OpenOffice?  Is there a
> way
>>>>  to rationalize the use of both names?  Or would that cause
> confusion
>>>>  among our own users?
>>>>  "Apache OpenOffice for your organization:
>>>>  -Rob
>>>>>>    <snip>
>>>>>>    My one concern with this name is its effect on the
> existing
>>>>>> trademark registration.  If we call
> ourselves
>>>>>>  "Apache OpenOffice" and never as
> "" what happens
>>>>>>  to the>>>    existing trademark?  Is it considered
> abandoned?  Can
>>>>>>  anyone then use
>>>>>>  it?  Can  we prevent someone from causing confusion by
> adopting that
>>>>>>  name for a
>>>>>>    similar product?
>>>>>>    To put it in perspective, when Oracle announced that it
> was
>>>>>>    contributing OOo to Apache, within a week a company
> attempted to
>>>>>>    register the trademark "OpenOffice" in the US.
> The value of our brand
>>>>>>    is significant enough to attract scams.
>>>>>>    Considering the past abuse that has been attempted
> against this brand,
>>>>>>    and the likely future repetitions of the same, I think
> that it is
>>>>>>    critical that we have some way to protect ourselves and
> our users
>>>>>>    against confusing misuse of the names OpenOffice,
>, Open
>>>>>>    Office, etc., in the usual variations.
>>>>>>    For example,  would Apache actually register "Apache
> OpenOffice" as a
>>>>>>    US trademark?
>>>>>>    So in summary, I like the shorter name "Apache
> OpenOffice" better than
>>>>>>    "Apache".  But I just want to
> make sure we don't
>>>>>>    lose the effective benefits and priority of the existing
>>>>>>    trademark registration.
>>>>>>    -Rob

View raw message