incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry <terauck-aoom...@yahoo.com.au>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
Date Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:53:58 GMT
I agree.  That leaves us with the name (including version number) and logos.

For the incubator version (do I have that right or should it be podling version?), logos can
stay as they are, I think, unless it is necessary to add ASF logos (which I think someone
said is unnecessary).

'OpenOffice' is in conflict with a brand using that term.  It seems to me that the choice
is between 'Apache Office', 'Apache Open Office', 'Apache Office Suite' and perhaps others.

With regard to version numbering, since the product follows on from oo.o versions, a sequential
number seems appropriate: 3.3.1, 3.4.0 or 4.0.0  I am not familiar with the conventions relating
to version numbering.

Terry



----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, 4 November 2011 10:54 AM
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
> 
> +1 - What he said.
> 
> There is an opportunity to be civil, generous, and respectful of all of the 
> other releases that share ancestry with the original OpenOfice.org (and not).
> 
> It appears that, possibly apart from the OpenOffice.org Forums and support of 
> previous OO.o releases (also having user support elsewhere), there's no 
> sensible way to provide an umbrella.  Maybe a loosely-connected federation where 
> each organization focuses primarily on developing and supporting their own 
> releases will work.  But it is clear that branding is to be focused on the 
> releases of particular projects, and there is no effective way to have closer 
> alignment.  
> 
> Each project is separately responsible for its sites and the integrity of their 
> operation.
> 
> 
> - Dennis E. Hamilton
>    tools for document interoperability,  <http://nfoWorks.org/>
>   dennis.hamilton@acm.org  gsm: +1-206-779-9430  @orcmid
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:asf@shanecurcuru.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 13:43
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product Branding
> 
> On 11/3/2011 6:59 AM, Terry wrote:
>>  Are you saying that the site http://ooo-site.apache.org/ is a
>>  prototype of the intended public site?
> 
> Yes.  The team is in the middle of migrating various bits (but not all) 
> of the old oo.o site onto Apache servers.  Status is on the wiki:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OOo-to-ASF-site-recommendation
> 
>>  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.
>>  http://www.odfauthors.org/ also has a section on art.
>> 
>> 
>>  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
>>  openoffice.org banner.
> 
> I think the most important thing to understand is that the oo.o domain 
> and brand are now being run by the Apache OpenOffice (AOOo) Podling 
> Project Management Committee (PPMC), for the purposes of creating a new 
> project, most likely called Apache OpenOffice.
> 
> While I imagine we will likely have several prominent Links or Resources 
> pages that feature factual links to other related technologies, I do not 
> see oo.o as an "umbrella" of all oo.o related projects.  In 
> particular, 
> it will be AOOo committers who have write access to the primary pages on 
> this domain.  Each of the other major projects (LO, Neo, Red, etc.) has 
> their own governance, web presence, and way of doing things.
> 
> - Shane
> 
>> 
>>  Terry
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>  From: Dennis E. Hamilton<orcmid@apache.org> To:
>>>  ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org 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:// *.openoffice.org 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<http://ooo-site.apache.org>  (not the
>>>  intended public URL - this is a place for reviewing of migrated
>>>  content before the actual cut-over of http:// *.openoffice.org
>>>  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 OpenOffice.org 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
>>>  OpenOffice.org 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.,<http://es.openoffice.org/>.
>>> 
>>>  - Dennis
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  -----Original Message----- From: Marcus (OOo)
>>>  [mailto:marcus.mail@wtnet.de] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011
>>>  17:20 To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org 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<terauck-aoomark@yahoo.com.au>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>>  I gather that what you want to achieve is preservation of the
>>>  'name'
>>>>>  'OpenOffice.org' as a trademark and as an identifier.
>>>  Eventually people
>>>>>  will know that the Apache product is derived from the old
>>>  openoffice.org
>>>>>  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 openoffice.org because LibreOffice can also make that claim.
>>>>>  I
>>>  gather
>>>>>  that LibreOffice folk regard the Apache product as another fork
>>>>>  of OpenOffice.org.  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
>>>>  OpenOffice.org. 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 "openoffice.org 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 OpenOffice.org 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 "www.openoffice.org" for all Office 
> suites
>>>  that are based on OpenOffice.org. 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<robweir@apache.org> To:
>>>>>>  ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, 2
>>>>>>  November 2011 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Product
>>>>>>  Branding
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 6:12 PM,
>>>  Terry<terauck-aoomark@yahoo.com.au>
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>  I agree that ownership of the 'OpenOffice.org' 
> 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:
>>>  OpenOffice.org"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  -Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  <snip>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  My one concern with this name is its effect on the
>>>  existing
>>>>>>>>  OpenOffice.org trademark registration.  If we call
>>>  ourselves
>>>>>>>>  "Apache OpenOffice" and never as
>>>  "OpenOffice.org" 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,
>>>  OpenOffice.org, 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 OpenOffice.org".  But I just want 
> to
>>>  make sure we don't
>>>>>>>>  lose the effective benefits and priority of the 
> existing
>>>>>>>>  OpenOffice.org trademark registration.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>  -Rob
>>> 
>

Mime
View raw message