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. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- 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 ***