On 29 February 2012 13:48, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >>>> >>> >> >> ... > > Ross, the part you conveniently snipped here was where I said the PPMC > does have a policy here. It is on the website. Using the trademarks > requires PPMC permission and this is evaluated on a case-by-case > basis. This would include any one who wanted to use a "powered by > logo". Our policy is that would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. > This is not lack of policy. This is just that default policy that the > vast majority of TLP and podlings have today.
OK, sorry for snipping that. So can we have a powered by logo? I'm saying policy *plus* logo. > > And this does not in any way prevent or hinder someone from reusing > the 3.4 release. Take a look at any other Apache release, say > Subversion. They have plenty of 3rd party ports and derived products. > But they are not using a "powered by logo". I don't see a problem > here. Yes, but I'm not talking about Subversion. I'm talking about AOO where the need for "powered by" has come up in a number of specific cases. > > Note: I'm certainly open to such a logo if you, or anyone else, wants > to contribute one. But I don't think this is a priority right now, > and the actions of other PPMC members suggests that they agree. Fair enough. When does it become a priority? I'm concerned that it's a catch 22. However, if you are correct and the PPMC is not concerned about this then fair enough, it's not a blocker. Ross > >> >>> 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 -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
