Hi Charles,
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:42 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> I inserted
> inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
> version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.
Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can use the
LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" seems to
accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for:
* Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
* Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"
As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially
unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the
LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy
says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too.
Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like there are a
lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for:
* restricting spokespeople to a chosen set
* ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known
* defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be
LibreOffice
Then there are two sets of marks:
* LibreOffice
* The Document Foundation
And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for
these two marks.
Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - which
incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no
difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a
difference.
Which is correct ?
> It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two.
> You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
> that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image
> marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values.
Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want different rules to
a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really saying it is ok for
someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document Foundation" - if they use
a different font/set of colors / style of writing ? :-) I hope not.
Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we should do the
same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did) - I see you
replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't think this makes
for a clear, crisp policy.
> Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
> more period of 24 hours now.
My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than clearer
the more that the pages are edited :-) The original TM policy, as
reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight.
I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider actually what it
is we want to achieve with this separation of different logos / marks;
it is -highly- unclear to me.
Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and minimally -
in tight language that can be understood by everyone.
That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not approve
the policy in its current form; sorry.
HTH,
Michael.
--
[email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
