On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Aug 2011, at 16:23, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 14 Aug 2011, at 14:24, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We have a trademark policy that states what uses are permitted without >>>>>> additional permission, and which uses may be allowed with specific >>>>>> permission from Apache. The policy does not differ based the >>>>>> incorporation status of the requestor. However, the application of >>>>>> the policy, on a case by cases basis, will obviously take into account >>>>>> the specific circumstances of the request. >>>>> >>>>> All true with regard to the use of trademarks, but mostly orthogonal to >>>> the question of the AOOo project's attitude towards third-party >>>> fundraisers. >>>> AOOo is in a unique position compared with all prior Apache projects of >>>> which I am aware and the various comments on this thread indicate we need >>>> to >>>> give thoughtful and clear guidance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. But this guidance comes in response to thoughtful and clear >>>> proposal from an organization that wishes to use the trademark. >>>> >>> >>> Assuming you mean TeamOOo, does that mean you believe their name is a >>> trademark infringement? >>> >> >> You are making a false assumption. We don't have a proposal from TeamOOo. > > Which non-profit fundraiser (the subject of the conversation at this stage) > were you referring to then? >
I wrote, "However, the application of the policy, on a case by cases basis, will obviously take into account the specific circumstances of the request." That is obviously speaking generically, since we do not presently have any request before us. -Rob > S. > >
