On 23 June 2011 12:09, Goran Rakic <gra...@devbase.net> wrote: > У чет, 23. 06 2011. у 10:41 +0100, Ian Lynch пише: > > All it needs to do is have a set of criteria or even a simple > > contractual statement that the partner company providing services on > > behalf of the community will uphold community principles and not bring > > it into disrepute. > > Why the such contract is required? If trademark policy allows you to do > the certification business, what is the point of the having a contract? >
Because 1. It provides a formal relationship so that the partner company contributes back to the project 2. In the government and corporate worlds they don't understand the informality of FOSS communities and might not commit without it. 3. Without it you run the risk of companies using the Trade Mark and associating it with things the community would not want to be associated with and no means of practical redress. Of course you don't have to have a contract, we didn't plan on having one it simply has advantages to both parties. Usually contracts do. Are you suggesting there should be some exclusivity where only those who > are signing a contract with TDF can do the certification? I see this as > a real danger for the community. > No, it's just the same as here in the UK with the qualifications regulators. If we meet the regulatory criteria then people have confidence in us if we don't they won't. Any company willing to meet the criteria can be accredited, it's not a matter of exclusion its about inclusion of those that meet the criteria. Here are three simple examples of criteria a FOSS community might want to apply. 1. The partner will give at least equal weight to supporting the certification related to free and open source products as they do to any proprietary products. 2. The partner will make a reasonable contribution to the community development effort in keeping with the benefit gained from association with the community. 3. The partner will have sufficient quality assurance procedures and systems in place so as to uphold the integrity of the community. Of course you might disagree or want other criteria, these are just examples to illustrate that the community can use these things to help further its aims. > Your contribution in terms of learning materials and LibreOffice > promotion is valuable as such, I do not see why would you need further > endorsements. > Because the corporate world and some governments will expect it. This is as much if not more for community benefit than it is for us. We don't have a shortage of potential lines of business development. In fact the reverse is true, we have too many possibilities and insufficient resources to commit to all of them. We currently operate without any community endorsement and we have only come back to the possibility because of the changes with Sun/Oracle/LibO/OOo we really don't need it specifically. However, I know of at least one large potential customer that would at least like it if not require it. Its probably not worth our while entering complex negotiations with such an organisation if it will fail because they require official contracts that are impossible to get. Kind regards, > Goran Rakic > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted