On 29 February 2012 12:54, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 28 February 2012 20:01, Donald Whytock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> There was talk of a "Powered by AOO" logo. Maybe this should be >>> propogated up to the foundation to have an "Apache Inside" logo? >> >> No, that is not how it (currently) works around here. Providing a >> foundation wide "Apache inside" logo doesn't seem to make sense to me. >> It means that huge numbers of Java applications would have "Apache >> inside" because of the almost universal use of the various Commons >> libraries. I can't speak for the Trademarks committee but I very much >> doubt they would want to take on managing such a situation. If you >> want to challenge that opinion the right place to do it is >> [email protected] >> >> It is critical that AOO recognises that each project is responsible >> for their own trademark management beyond the standard Apache policy. >> Trademarks@ is there to provide support when necessary, but this PPMC >> is responsible for day to day management. The AOO project ***needs*** >> "powered by" or whatever. Without one it is extremely difficult to >> have satisfactory arrangements with organisations like Team OOo. The >> project mentors have been saying this since the very beginning of the >> project yet nobody has yet created such a logo and accompanying >> policy. >> >
... > Maybe a better example would be the FreeBSD port? That does not have > the extraneous issues that we had with TOO. Sure, if you prefer. > but the advice we received > early on was to handle these case-by-case for a while, so we get a > sense of what kinds of requests will be coming in and what kinds of > issues arise. Writing a policy in a vacuum without that experience > would be folly, IMHO. Agreed. But the advice from at least three mentors, possibly more, on a number of specific cases has been "use a powered by policy". Each time it has been mentioned it seems to have been met with general agreement (at least no objections). > In any case, if you are uncertain as to whether there is a podling > release policy related to "powered by" logos, I'd be happy to raise > this on the general@incubator list. Surely, if there were such a > policy, written or unwritten, someone on the IPMC would be able to > point us to previous invocations of that rule. I am not saying anything about release policies. I'm suggesting that the lack of a "powered by AOO" logo and policy might be considered a blocker for the 3.4 release. I'm suggesting that the provision of such might simplify the reuse of AOO 3.4. That's the goal, right? The IPMC does not have a policy relating to "powered by" and its relationship to releases. It is entirely up to the PPMC to decide what is/is not a blocker. The trademarks committee does have guidance on "powered by" approaches. There is a specifc FAQ entry on the powered by topic, I'm not sure it has ever been pointed to explicitly so here you go: "May I use Apache Powered by... marks or logos in software product names or logos?" http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#poweredby Ross
