On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Phillip Rhodes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:23 PM, flamin hotdog > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> hi, i was wondering where you stand on people selling open office. i know of >> somebody who is selling open office on ebay for profit. >> thanks andy >> > > Generally speaking, it's fine to take the code, compile it into a > binary, and sell it... with or without source code, and under > any terms compatible with the Apache License. The bigger question, to > me, is what they *call* the thing they sell. The code > is freely available, but the trademarks and what-not around the name > "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache", etc. are a different > issue. Somebody selling binaries called "Apache OpenOffice" would, I > think, need explicit permission to use that name (somebody > correct me if I'm wrong). But selling it as "Bob's Kickass Office > Suite" should be fine. >
That's where it gets interesting. Generally no permission is needed for so-called "nominative use" of a trademark. This permits minimal use of the trademark where necessary for accurate identification. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use So if someone has downloaded OpenOffice and put OpenOffice on a CD, then there should not be a problem with them labeling the CD as "OpenOffice". Anything else would be less accurate and less useful to the consumer. However, putting the OpenOffice logo on the CD? Using the OpenOffice logo in your webpage used to sell the CD's? Calling your company "OpenOffice Direct"? These go beyond the minimum needed to identify what is on the CD. If someone is doing that, without permission from Apache, then this could be a problem. Note: IANAL, but that is my understanding of how trademarks are treated in the US. It may be different in other countries. -Rob > > Phillip Rhodes
