I agree with Ross that the Powered by Logo and Policy is needed. I won't have time to say more for a day or two,
Regards, Dave On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > 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
