Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de
 designates 213.209.103.15 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E397F77.1060602@wtnet.de>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:03:51 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: status of OpenOffice logo?
References: <4E39693C.5000907@gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoiqdTam17L5FjfR0B8-_UQa+e_WqY6FUFgtuQuN1iB9pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E397699.5050004@wtnet.de>
 <CAP-ksohjTFf2MReor0BH8wNAuD2dPSxbrfxqm6N+yummpYqsOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksohjTFf2MReor0BH8wNAuD2dPSxbrfxqm6N+yummpYqsOg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 08/03/2011 06:46 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>> Am 08/03/2011 05:56 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Kay Schenk<kay.schenk@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are some first steps proceding with moving portions of the existng
>>>> OpenOffice.org site to Apache. See, for example,
>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/download/index.html
>>>>
>>>> This page lacks headers and footers, which brings me to...
>>>>
>>>> I know there's been discussion about the current OpenOffice.org logo
>>>>
>>>> vis a vis trademarks, possible changes due to Apache etc.
>>>>
>>>> But could someone give us an update on this?
>>>>
>>>> Can we use the existing logo without changes (i.e. ref to Apache?) or ???
>>>>
>>>
>>> Use the logo where?
>>
>> see the link above?
>>
>
> Oh, that page.  That is just a prototype, right?  We're not linking to
> it from the Podling website, right?

Right, we just play a bit with the file to see how they behave and look 
like inside the Apache infrastructure. The biggest difference to the 
original pages are now header and footer.

> We need to have a separate discussion if we want to start offering
> downloads of legacy OOo releases from the Apache side.  From the
> website perspective, yes, we want consistent branding.  But we also
> need to make it clear that those are not Apache files and are not
> under the Apache 2.0 license.

My suggestion:
We can create a legacy webpage for non-Apache releases with an own and 
static branding as exception. All other webpages can get a new branding 
from templates, CSS, etc.

>>>> There seems to be few Apache projects. e.g Buildr, which don't seem to
>>>> use
>>>> the Apache logo, and since there seems to be a consensus to keep
>>>> OpenOffice.org at a site openoffice.org, I'm wondering if we can just
>>>> proceed with what we ahve in terms of headers for web pages without
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which headers and footers?  The ones at OO.o that have the Oracle and
>>> the Project Kenai logos and have the statement "Oracle and Java are
>>> registered trademarks of Oracle and/or its affiliates"?   I don't
>>> think we will want to keep that page footer unchanged.
>>
>> Of course some things have to be exchanged. But I think Kay means if we can
>> keep the general wording/formulation the same or do we need to change them
>> totally.
>>
>
> We should also review the privacy policy, the disclaimer, the terms of
> use, etc.  We should probably harmonize with whatever Apache uses.  So
> I don't think anything from the footer other than "This page was last
> modified on..." can be assumed to be reusable as-is.

OK, seems to become a totally new one. ;-)

> The header, however, is wonderful.  I wouldn't change that.
>
> It might be worth starting a thread on "web site design".  Maybe we
> want a redesign for a "re-launch" timed to our first Apache release?
>
> -Rob

Marcus