Hi, I turned this discussion inside out in my mind, and I think that we can perhaps work it out if we ask a different question. We all agree on the TM policy itself (we do, I think). There is but one detail concerning the use of the TDF subline in a logo that is understood as somewhat different (or not). The reason we have this discussion is that we, or at least a majority of us believe that TDF itself on a logo should not be used that easily.
So the question is: does the TM policy in abstracto give enough protection to all of our trademarks, logos etc? If not, can we insert some additional languages? Hope this helps, Charles. 2011/3/8 Thorsten Behrens <t...@documentfoundation.org> > 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 *** > > -- 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 ***
