Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: > old business...see Rob's responses below > > Would it be OK to extract some of Rob's responses and add them (in a general > way) to the modified -- > > http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ > > page? > > Maybe as sort of a general FAQ on redistributing? > > But with a caveat that ooo-dev should still be contacted. > > At least this might forego addressing the same sorts of issues again and > again. +1 Regards, Dave > > On 04/03/2012 04:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Issac Goldstand<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> At ACNA I mentioned to Shane that the company that I work for was >>> interested in re-distributing OO but was concerned over the legalities of >>> doing so - specifically regarding trademark use. After explaining the >>> company and project in detail he said that he thought it could work out, >>> and directed me to poll the podling as a prerequisite for getting trademark >>> approval from the ASF. Although that project (at work) was frozen by the >>> time I returned from Vancouver, it's come up in discussion again, so I'd >>> like to ask the podling for permission to use the trademarks and guidance >>> on how to best keep the podling's interests in mind. >>> >>> The company focuses on monetized installers, similar to those found in >>> Oracle's JAVA windows installer or on CNET downloads (which is actually our >>> product), where we offer an opt-in bundled software download as part of the >>> installer. >>> >>> Currently, our team has come up with mockups for the installer and landing >>> page for the download, which I'd be happy to provide in the form of >>> attachments on-list, or off-list (or on a wiki if that's the "right way to >>> do it"). >>> >>> >> Hi Isaac, >> >> Here are my personal thoughts. Don't take this as a final decision by the >> project, but just me weighing in, and hoping that other project members do >> as well. >> >> First, thanks for asking. Not everyone does that, though they should. >> >> Links to your mock-up would be great. >> >> For background, I would note that some of our users have been confused but >> such "monitized installers" before, and we have received complaints. >> (However, to be fair I don't think they were from your company). >> >> Since we cannot control the quality or the user experience for modified >> installs, and the experience for the user would differ from our released >> OpenOffice, it would probably be confusing to the user to call your product >> just "OpenOffice.org" or "Apache OpenOffice" without further distinction. >> IMHO, one of the attributes of our brand is that it is non-commercial, >> free, open source software. >> >> So I think you should consider another primary name that distinguish your >> offering, while truthfully indicating that it is based on OpenOffice. For >> example, "Super Office, powered by Apache OpenOffice", where "Super Office" >> could be any name of your choice that you have rights to use. That might >> be the name of your overall bundle. >> >> So if there is a link that says, "Click here to download OpenOffice.org", >> and that link does not actually point directly to an unmodified release of >> OpenOffice.org, then that is a problem. If it says, "Click here to >> download the Super Office Bundle, powered by OpenOffice.org (TM)", then >> that might be OK. >> >> >> >>> What we want to know, specifically is: >>> 1) How to brand the product? Given we're talking about 3.3.0 (at least >>> until 3.4.0 happens), we thought to simply brand it OpenOffice.org Should >>> we continue that line, or use Apache OpenOffice? If the latter, should we >>> include "Incubating" and the logos set out at https://cwiki.apache.org/** >>> confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**AOOLogo+proposal<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOOLogo+proposal>or >>> not? >>> >> >> >> 3.3 should be called "OpenOffice.org", 3.4 should be called "Apache >> OpenOffice". >> >> >>> 2) We'd like pointers on the right place (if any) to include (TM) or (R) >>> or anything else both on the landing page and on the installer. >>> >> >> "OpenOffice.org" would be (R). "Apache OpenOffice" would be (TM) >> >> Acknowledgment of the trademarks is key. Also, if users might be confused >> as to the source of the bundle, a disclaimer might be appropriate, e.g., >> "Super Office is a product of Foo Corporation and is not affiliated with or >> endorsed by the Apache Software Foundation. "OpenOffice.org" is a >> trademark of the Apache Software Foundation." >> >> 3) Other general pointers that you have. >>> >>> Policy is here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ >> >> My recommendation would be first to resolve the name question and how to >> avoid users confusing the bundled software with an Apache source or >> endorsement. That is the key question. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Issac >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > MzK > > "So let it rock, let it roll > Let the bible belt come and save my soul > Hold on to sixteen as long as you can > Changes come around real soon make us woman and men." > -- "Jack and Diane", John Mellencamp
