On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > Thanks, Rob, Dave. I would suggest that when queries come to us we a) > point them to a flux page (a wiki, say) and ultimately to the > lists/persons Dave mentions. The emphasis must be on the new context: > Apache. As OOo gets rather a lot of these, I'd further suggest we > consider doing what we did at OOo, and pretty much automate the > *request* process, if not the *granting* one. (Example of request: I > want to promote OpenOffice.org and put the logo on my site. Can I? or, > I want to issue CDROMs and charge for media and labour and use the > logo and trademark: Can I? Both these queries can be answered with > boilerplate.)
There is a faq for the Apache guidelines [1]. It is a subpage. Certainly go ahead and start a page in the Project Planning Wiki. [2] I do think that the page will need to be on the podling website in markdown with mailto and subject links. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/ [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Project+Planning > > > > On 10 November 2011 15:02, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: >> >>> I continue (naturally) to receive many requests from businesses (small >>> and large) to use the trademarked "OpenOffice.org" logo. I generally >>> pass on these, as there seemed, until very recently, a mystery on how >>> to proceed. I'm still in need of enlightenment, and would appreciate >>> some guidance. >>> >>> * I think it's pointless to endorse "OpenOffice.org" at this point. >>> The probable name of its successor will be "Apache OpenOffice" or some >>> variant thereof. And that new name will come into play very soon >>> indeed. We will need to progressively inform all those using the old >>> logo/name/trademark to switch over with new installation sets. >> >> It is not pointless. We plan to keep this registered trademark and domain >> regardless of the product name. > > We *want* to have both OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice (if that's > what comes down)? That seems a little confusing, don't you think? > > Or do you mean to say, "We want to advocate and promote the use of > "Apache OpenOffice" or whatever, while also silently holding on to the > legacy name and trademark"? > > >> >>> >>> * I would therefore like to be able to respond to those requesting use >>> of the trademark, etc., to wait a little bit, and then to return to >>> us—preferably to a wiki or even better, an automated service, such as >>> we used on OOo, for this. (The automated service allowed us to docket >>> requests and act more expeditiously, while also giving room for more >>> fully understanding the request. Otherwise, the requests were simply >>> sent to a list I set up for this and which John, Florian, and I >>> managed for several years, though it really seems like an eternity—and >>> John was doing much of the work.) >> >> I may be wrong, but trademark requests need to go to the PPMC. Since these >> are private matters - [email protected]. Requests will be evaluated and >> forwarded to [email protected] for approval. This is the current process which >> we've used in one or two cases. >> > > As I mentioned at the top, the sheer volume would dictate a different > strategy. Think Mozilla popularity among endusers. And keep in mind > that OOo differs from many Apache projects (podling or not) in wearing > a benign user face (user friendly, like); indeed, the vast majority of > those coming to the site were there to get the app, not to make it. > (Sigh.) I know that will change—yay—but what won't change will be its > relative popularity, though of course some will prefer LibreOffice. >>> >>> — >>> >>> I also receive many (well, a few) requests and inquiries about >>> contributing to OpenOffice.org code. (Rob has been included in one >>> such.) Right now, it's a little easier to tell people what to do—join >>> Apache's lists for OOo in the Incubator, participate, contribute. But >>> not all requests are quite so simple. For instance, what about >>> templates? Extensions? I have no problem with telling people to join >>> the lists where the contributions are, and to proceed according to the >>> Apache way (tao of apache?) but perhaps there are other answers I >>> should give? (Oh, and I have no problem whatsoever with others taking >>> on this role. I've just been doing it as an extension of my previous >>> existence modulo OOo, not as an assertion of nonexistent authority.) >> >> We've yet to find a volunteer to take the lead on dealing with these >> overloaded Drupal servers at OSUOSL. > > I would suggest we articulate a better version of what we had with > OOo—more open, perhaps—and I would help in finding someone to assist > here. The Extensions repository is of real importance, and not just > for OOo. It's where a lot of contributors go, as OOo remains > formidable for many, but the extensions do not. > > The people who made Extensions so good are mostly here, on the Apache > lists: Juergen, for one, did a lot of great work. > > So: I suggest we need to clarify, using a wiki, the trademark policy > *at present* and as it may evolve. > > Rob's suggestion, > > quote > > I'd recommend something like this: > > 1) Have the person who wants to use the trademark check this page and > make sure they really need permission. In some cases ("nominative > use") no permission is required. > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ > > > 2) If they actually do require permission, then they should send the > request to this ooo-dev list. If there was something especially > sensitive (unannounced product plans or similar), they could send the > request to ooo-private, We would discuss and decide if we (the PPMC) > supported the request or not. > > 3) If we supported the request, then we would send our recommendation > to the Apache VP of Branding, who makes the final decision. > > (We should really write up this procedure) > > /quote > > is a start, but having lived through the email flood that comes from > this—and having understood that asking people to subscribe for this > sort of request is not the best remedy for a user app like OOo, I'd > suggest something like what we had on OOo or that Mozilla uses, a > process by which requests are automatically docketed via form filled > out by the requester and if the nature of the request merits it, are > individually scrutinized for approval. > > I further suggest that we start itemizing a list of things That Need to Be > Done. > >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> > > > Cheers, > Louis
