Bernhard Dippold wrote: > As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be > reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO) > aside for the moment. > Hi Bernhard, all,
well maybe - but maybe we should beforehand try to reach mutual agreement on what we want to achieve (unless we want to go back & change the trademark policy, possibly) - > Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph: > Hm, I don't think that really clears things up enough? > When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called > LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at > least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the > logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified". > Yes, and > > * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice" > > * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice" > > It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above: > "Individual community members and other people referring to our > product and the community should use the logo without the subline." > > > > 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. > > That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here. > > The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it > contains the "substantially unmodified binaries". > > But in the description of this product, references to the community, > merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF > subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF. > And this is not clearly separated at all, I'm afraid. The catch is that there's a very fuzzy border between a splash screen (being permitted to display TDF), and a screenshot on a box (*not* being permitted to display TDF, if handed out by a mere community member, if I interpret you right?) > No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they > aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the > wordmarks. > I think that was Michael's issue - with the link to the logo guidelines, they actually affect each other, legally. ;) So if you're ok that if in doubt, the Trademark rules are the authoritative ones (i.e. I don't want to revisit them, should we later discover they contradict the intended logo guidelines), then I'd agree with your proposal to remove the link to the logo guidelines and approve the trademark rules as-is. Cheers, -- Thorsten -- 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 ***
