incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Wave Logo
Date Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:51:29 GMT
Understood, so per our earlier interchange I'd hope that more clear Apache
ownership of the current logo can help to simplify rights and claims. Nest,
John
On Jun 5, 2013 12:49 PM, "Upayavira" <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message