incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: Wave Logo
Date Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:49:06 GMT
While a logo might be open source, trademark law will restrict what you
can do with it. It is important to recognise that logos are kind of a
special case in open source.

Upayavira

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 02:23 PM, John Blossom wrote:
> Copyright is claimed for the logo by Google but the word Wave is too
> generic and used too widely to be likely to be trademarked in association
> with the logo. The main concern that I have is that Apache should ensure
> a
> more clear ownership of the logo. But if it is used only on open source
> projects, then by definition CC should be fine for now anyway.
> On Jun 4, 2013 3:04 PM, "Alfredo Abambres" <alfredoabambres@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Was the OpenWave logo submitted to the organization responsible for
> > certification of TM or R in the US or any other country by Google or
> > Apache?
> >
> > If not, then we cannot (legally) use the TM symbol or the "trademark" word.
> >
> > AFAIK, (and I don't know much) the logo was designed and set to use a CC
> > attribution license. No legal registration happened, but I may be wrong
> > about the registration. Anyhow, if that happened, then a legal document
> > should be in someone's archive.
> >
> > Wave On.
> >
> > http://alfredo.abambres.com
> >
> > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke*
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:10 PM, John Blossom <jblossom@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That does seem to be the one that's referenced in the rights page. I am
> > not
> > > sure where they stand in clarifying the rights ownership transfer with
> > > Google, but either way it seems to be the right one.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > John Blossom
> > >
> > > at 6:20 AM, Yuri Z <vega113@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep, I think we have rights only for the open wave logo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Angus Turner <angusisfree@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I know for sure we have the rights for the Open Wave one, not sure
> > > about
> > > > > the wiab. I personally think we should go for the openwave, and can
> > add
> > > > the
> > > > > trademark to it if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Angus Turner
> > > > > angusisfree@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Ali Lown <ali@lown.me.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Christian has raised the point that we need to attach 'Trademark'
> > to
> > > > > > the wave logo before we can release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We seem to be using a different logo in the project to the one
on
> > the
> > > > > > website:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/branches/wave-0.4-release/war/static/logo.png
> > > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/wave/images/OpenWaveLogo.png
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which of these should we be using going forward? (Presumably
the
> > Open
> > > > > > Wave logo?) (Do we have rights over the wave-in-a-box one?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ali
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Mime
View raw message