Hi,
Le Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:14 +0000, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com> a écrit : > Hi there, > > On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:46 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Please find the more or less final draft of the trademark policy of > > the Document Foundation: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy > > We've done some analysis internally on it, and the good news > is that the text looks fairly good. > > There is some concern about the lack of clarity on whether > incorporating libreoffice (or other marks) into a domain name > is allowed - this is an area people often want to tread on, > and we should probably directly address it. > > Similarly - it does not mention including 'libreoffice' into a > business name - I think we should simply prohibit that. > > So I suggest we add a clarification of both of these to the > end of the "Non permitted use section". > > "Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name, or business name > without explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited." That does sound sensible. We should also think about having maybe differentiated logos... > > Another point is around the licensing of the policy itself; I > suggest we place it under some sort of open license - e.g., creative > commons attribution share-alike, or something like that, so other > projects can freely re-use it. That is relatively easy to do, but I'd > like to get Karen's feedback first. That's trivial indeed. > > Finally - I just realised that I'd like the "substantially > unmodified" clause to include a few more bundling bits: so > > "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code > provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including > but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain > features by default, translations into other languages, > changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system > - distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches)." > + distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the > bundling > + of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions) > > Since that seems like it is something people would want to > call LibreOffice and just extends the "package other translations" > scope to other common things. > > So - do people have problems with any of that ? Not from my side. Here's the feedback I gathered elsewhere (from other lawyers): -the substantially unmodified clause was found vague so what you just proposed above might help. - there was the question of the clause requesting that any distributor mentions one can get LibreOffice for free (on our website) and provide a link to it. The question was about whether we should request distributors to put that more proeminently. I have to say I didn't really understand that comment; but the answer was that Mozilla does not even allow to make a profit from the distribution of the software on a physical medium (you can charge a fee covering costs, but not make a profit on it apparently). I think we want to leave our clause the way it is, it sounds reasonnable. Best, Charles. > > HTH, > > Michael. > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
