On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Louis Suárez-Potts <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 21 Dec 2014, at 13:48, jan i <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > If we use digital signing then it for sure will be a branded product. In > > general I am in favor for branded applications and non-branded libraries > > and source. > > Having gone through the process of branding, trademarking and so on for > more than one product and project—the most famous however being > OpenOffice.org but it was not the only—a couple of issues leap to mind. > I’ll be brief. > > * Apache Corinthia: would Apache pay for branding and trademarking? I mean > minimal. Not global, complete, etc. Branding would be effectively cheap or > free; trademarking less so. Previously, with OpenOffice.org (note, I refer > here to OpenOffice.org, not Apache OpenOffice), we had pro-bono assistance. > This was before Sun/Oracle kicked in; that only occurred in 2008 or so, and > previous to then we (mostly I) did it ourselves. asf pays for branding when we become TLP or shortly before not at this stage. I dont know exact what kind if branding asf does, but basically the sane as for AOO. > > * Pursuing fakers. I’ve done a lot of this. It is not difficult. It does > take time. It also helps if there is a large entity, or at least one with > legal power, standing behind one: Apache, yes? YES asf legal uses quite a lot of the probono work on this. > > * I rather agree with Jan but would also point out that we just need to be > clear what is meant by “brand” here. Ie, how it differs from the de rigeur > license claim attached to each file (or equivalent). I see what you mean, but I am not sure I could describe the corinthia brand right now, maybe when we are more mature. rgds jan i -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
