OK thanks, I hope I've made the appropriate changes to our homepage now. I've also asked for approval for our derived logo.
Thanks a lot. On 21/12/17 18:06, Wayne Beaton wrote: > Hi Stephane > > I think that you're mostly okay. > > What I look for is a strong indication that the project operates in an > open manner as described by the Eclipse Development Process. i.e. open > to collaboration with others on a level playing field. Any sort of > strong "sponsored by" statement may act as a barrier for others to > contribute. e.g. a community member is less likely to contribute to a > project that they perceive to be dominated by a single company. > > TL;DR: please make it clear that it is an Eclipse open source project, > not a Red Hat open source project. > > I have added a few comments below. > > I'm pretty sure the trademark is now owned by Eclipse, though I > think the copyright remains the same. > > Yes. The Eclipse Foundation holds the trademark for all project names. > > Note that the derivatives of the Eclipse Logo (the Ceylon elephant in > front of the logo is derivative) must be approved by the Eclipse Board > of Directors. > > There's more help > here: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php#ProperEclipse > <https://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php#ProperEclipse> > > Do I have to remove the Red Hat logo? > > It needs to be entirely clear that this is an Eclipse open source > project. We need to avoid any implication that Red Hat has any special > status in the project. Having the logo on the page is fine in this > case, its positioning feels wrong, however. > > From the handbook <https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#checklist>: > > Company logos may optionally be included on a project website, but > only if the following conditions are met. > > * The company is a member of the Eclipse Foundation; > * At least one project committer is an employee of the company > in question; and > * The committer is active (i.e. they have made at least one > commit in the last three months) > > Note that this means that any other company that meets the criteria > should have the opportunity for their logo to be included. > > Do I have to remove the "sponsored by Red Hat" bit? > > Same as with the logo. Level playing field applies. Avoid the > implication that the project is dominated by Red Hat or that Red Hat > has a special status with the project. As other contribute, they get > to play by the same rules. > > Having said that, I prefer the word "contribute" over "sponsor". e.g. > provide a list of major contributors. > > I'd probably add the Eclipse logo next to the Red Hat one, and say > it's sponsored by Red Hat and Eclipse, no? > > In my mind, the project is not /sponsored/ by the Eclipse Foundation. > Strictly speaking, it's /owned/ by the Eclipse Foundation on behalf of > the community. > > Note that the usage guidelines require that you treat "Eclipse" as an > adjective. "Eclipse Foundation", "Eclipse Project", "Eclipse Ceylon", > but never just "Eclipse" (yes, I still have a few occurrences in our > documentation to hunt down and fix). > > I think I have to change the trademark part, but do you have > equivalent Terms of Use and Privacy Policy that I have to point to? > > https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#trademarks-website-footer > > HTH, > > Wayne > > -- > Wayne Beaton > Director of Open Source Projects > The Eclipse Foundation > > > _______________________________________________ > incubation mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
_______________________________________________ incubation mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
