On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote: > >> Hello *, >> >> >> > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] >> >> > So...this thread does not meet "lazy consensus" but are we ready to >> > implement this addition, without further changes, anyway? >> > I'll be happy to >> > take care of this either later today or tomorrow if we are. >> >> Can you please summarize what the solution should look like? >> >> The thread is long and I have somewhat lost track as "point # 4" should be >> changed. >> Should he ever be changed or what says: >> >> > ... Can be eased a bit as it is clear enough did the >> > Items are with and for our project, respectively. product. >> >> >> In particular, it would be important for me to know whether I can change >> my website (http://www.jm-schmidt.de/inhalt.html) or must. >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> Jörg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > My take on this discussion so far (and I am certainly NOT the definitive > judge on this): > > * there is the listing on the consultants page itself: > http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html >
I wrote that page, so it might not be too presumptuous if I say what I meant when I wrote it ;-) The guideline is that the 3rd party pages must "respect ASF Trademarks". This is vague, but intentionally so. I think we'll all be more accurate judges of what is wrong when we see it than we are predictors of all things that could possibly be wrong. So the discretion is given to the PMC to take this on a case-by-case basis. We should be looking at each submission and their linked websites as a whole. The kinds of abuses I had in mind were mainly pages that implied that the services were endorsed or affiliated with the ASF. This is much more than technicalities of whether or not a (TM) symbol is used. For example, a page that calls itself "Apache OpenOffice (TM) Consulting Group" would *not* be OK. We don't want our trademarks used as adjectives, since that suggests an affiliation. I also had in mind that we might need to correct names where they are misstated, e.g., "Apache Open Office", "Apache Openoffice", "OpenOffice.org", etc. Regards, -Rob > concerning the actual content we are discussing. This does not have a (TM) > after Apache OpenOffice. I thought this was the original cause of objection. > > And, we can see from the listings on the consultants page that we did not > enforce a (TM) after Apache OpenOffice on the consultants page. > > * there are the actual websites of the consultants, like yours, and this > submitted one up for consideration. > > It seems there is more concern to enforce a (TM) symbol after Apache > OpenOffice for these third party websites. However, this is not something > required by Apache. > > See: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution > > The important factor is referencing OpenOffice as "Apache OpenOffice", and > not the use the of the (TM) after the name. > > The website, http://www.jm-schmidt.de/inhalt.html, seems to have all bases > covered near as I can tell -- correct naming and use of (TM). > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
