openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: OOo Business...
Date Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:22:26 GMT

On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

> Thanks, Rob, Dave. I would suggest that when queries come to us we a)
> point them to a flux page (a wiki, say) and ultimately to the
> lists/persons Dave mentions. The emphasis must be on the new context:
> Apache. As OOo gets rather a lot of these, I'd further suggest we
> consider doing what we did at OOo, and pretty much automate the
> *request* process, if not the *granting* one. (Example of request: I
> want to promote and put the logo on my site. Can I? or,
> I want to issue CDROMs and charge for media and labour and use the
> logo and trademark: Can I? Both these queries can be answered with
> boilerplate.)

There is a faq for the Apache guidelines [1]. It is a subpage.

Certainly go ahead and start a page in the Project Planning Wiki. [2]

I do think that the page will need to be on the podling website in markdown with mailto and
subject links.



> On 10 November 2011 15:02, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> I continue (naturally) to receive many requests from businesses (small
>>> and large) to use the trademarked "" logo. I generally
>>> pass on these, as there seemed, until very recently, a mystery on how
>>> to proceed. I'm still in need of enlightenment, and would appreciate
>>> some guidance.
>>> * I think it's pointless to endorse "" at this point.
>>> The probable name of its successor will be "Apache OpenOffice" or some
>>> variant thereof. And that new name will come into play very soon
>>> indeed. We will need to progressively inform all those using the old
>>> logo/name/trademark to switch over with new installation sets.
>> It is not pointless. We plan to keep this registered trademark and domain regardless
of the product name.
> We *want* to have both and Apache OpenOffice (if that's
> what comes down)? That seems a little confusing, don't you think?
> Or do you mean to say, "We want to advocate and promote the use of
> "Apache OpenOffice" or whatever, while also silently holding on to the
> legacy name and trademark"?
>>> * I would therefore like to be able to respond to those requesting use
>>> of the trademark, etc., to wait a little bit, and then to return to
>>> us—preferably to a wiki or even better, an automated service, such as
>>> we used on OOo, for this. (The automated service allowed us to docket
>>> requests and act more expeditiously, while also giving room for more
>>> fully understanding the request. Otherwise, the requests were simply
>>> sent to a list I set up for this and which John, Florian, and I
>>> managed for several years, though it really seems like an eternity—and
>>> John was doing much of the work.)
>> I may be wrong, but trademark requests need to go to the PPMC. Since these are private
matters - ooo-private@i.a.o. Requests will be evaluated and forwarded to trademarks@a.o for
approval. This is the current process which we've used in one or two cases.
> As I mentioned at the top, the sheer volume would dictate a different
> strategy. Think Mozilla popularity among endusers. And keep in mind
> that OOo differs from many Apache projects (podling or not) in wearing
> a benign user face (user friendly, like); indeed, the vast majority of
> those coming to the site were there to get the app, not to make it.
> (Sigh.) I know that will change—yay—but what won't change will be its
> relative popularity, though of course some will prefer LibreOffice.
>>> —
>>> I also receive many (well, a few) requests and inquiries about
>>> contributing to code. (Rob has been included in one
>>> such.) Right now, it's a little easier to tell people what to do—join
>>> Apache's lists for OOo in the Incubator, participate, contribute. But
>>> not all requests are quite so simple. For instance, what about
>>> templates? Extensions? I have no problem with telling people to join
>>> the lists where the contributions are, and to proceed according to the
>>> Apache way (tao of apache?) but perhaps there are other answers I
>>> should give? (Oh, and I have no problem whatsoever with others taking
>>> on this role. I've just been doing it as an extension of my previous
>>> existence modulo OOo, not as an assertion of nonexistent authority.)
>> We've yet to find a volunteer to take the lead on dealing with these overloaded Drupal
servers at OSUOSL.
> I would suggest we articulate a better version of what we had with
> OOo—more open, perhaps—and I would help in finding someone to assist
> here. The Extensions repository is of real importance, and not just
> for OOo. It's where a lot of contributors go, as OOo remains
> formidable for many, but the extensions do not.
> The people who made Extensions so good are mostly here, on the Apache
> lists: Juergen, for one, did a lot of great work.
> So: I suggest we need to clarify, using a wiki, the trademark policy
> *at present* and as it may evolve.
> Rob's suggestion,
> quote
> I'd recommend something like this:
> 1) Have the person who wants to use the trademark check this page and
> make sure they really need permission.  In some cases ("nominative
> use") no permission is required.
> 2) If they actually do require permission, then they should send the
> request to this ooo-dev list.  If there was something especially
> sensitive (unannounced product plans or similar), they could send the
> request to ooo-private,  We would discuss and decide if we (the PPMC)
> supported the request or not.
> 3) If we supported the request, then we would send our recommendation
> to the Apache VP of Branding, who makes the final decision.
> (We should really write up this procedure)
> /quote
> is a start, but having lived through the email flood that comes from
> this—and having understood that asking people to subscribe for this
> sort of request is not the best remedy for a user app like OOo, I'd
> suggest something like what we had on OOo or that Mozilla uses, a
> process by which requests are automatically docketed via form filled
> out by the requester and if the nature of the request merits it, are
> individually scrutinized for approval.
> I further suggest that we start itemizing a list of things That Need to Be Done.
>> Regards,
>> Dave
> Cheers,
> Louis

View raw message