On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: > > On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> cc/ [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark > >>>> Usage > >>>> > >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > >>>> > >>>> First item, logos: > >>>> > >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > >>>> Apache > >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > >>>> > >>>> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, > >>>> which is not the same as the logo on the website: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > >>>> > >>>> -or- the older web logo > >>>> > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > >>>> > >>>> So, I would like to do a few things: > >>>> > >>>> - also put > >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > >>>> > >>>> in > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > >>>> > >>>> Change > >>>> > >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > >>>> Apache > >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > >>>> > >>>> -- to -- > >>>> > >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > >>>> Apache > >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > >>>> > >>>> and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > >>>> > >>>> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to > >>>> remove) > >>>> > >>>> I will also change the logos area in: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > >>>> > >>>> and list all possible logos in: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed > >>> set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various > >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited > >>> to", is fine. > >>> > >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects > >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. > >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really > >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is > >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the > >>> product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several > >>> trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. > >>> > >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software > >>> is here: A good read on some of the issues here: > >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > >>> > >>>> Second item, other artwork: > >>>> > >>>> All artwork in: > >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > >>>> > >>>> seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > >>>> > >>>> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise > >>>> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use > >>>> and > >>>> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I > >>>> think > >>>> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo > >>>> and nothing else): > >>>> > >>> > >>> The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission > >>> to use the trademark. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite > >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, > >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo > >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission > >>> requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. > >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should > >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and > >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. > >>> > >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, > >>> unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind > >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that > >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems > >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow > >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites > >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this > >>> to confuse or lure users. > >>> > >>>> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an > >>>> object as you like subject to the following conditions: > >>>> > >>>> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: > >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > >>>> > >>> > >>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page? We already say > >>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission. We also give > >>> other useful information on how to request, etc. It would be good to > >>> keep that info all in one place. > >>> > >>>> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to > >>>> use (either LGPL or PDL) > >>>> > >>>> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL > >>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you > >>>> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the > >>>> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based > >>>> > >>>> (3) If the object is licensed PDL > >>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object > >>>> as > >>>> you desire but must make you modification publicly available. > >>>> > >>>> --- end of items --- > >>>> > >>>> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in > >>>> various > >>>> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely > >>>> started, > >>>> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements > >>>> correctly > >>>> aligned before I can complete that. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in > >>> any unrestricted way. The safer way is to develop new logos (like > >>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct > >>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for > >>> use in certain situations. > >>> > >>> Going back to what a trademark is: it gives legal protection for > >>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services. If we allow > >>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us) > >>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the > >>> trademark. > >>> > >>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is > >>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he > >>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an > >>> ISO image and the artwork. We could then state that anyone is welcome > >>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or > >>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does > >>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the > >>> ISO image we created. This protects the user as well. It also makes > >>> it easier for the distributor. If they want to include other files, > >>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would > >>> not include our logos. > >>> > >> > >> Hi Rob, Kay, et al > >> > >> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this > >> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full > >> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they > >> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the > >> groups us however, whenever :) > >> > >> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little > >> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace > >> > >> _but_ > >> > >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license > >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I > >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also.. > >> > >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png > >> > >> (bottom of back cover :) > >> > >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image > >> as a whole. > >> > >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project > >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > > > > The problem is this. You are not asking permission (as far as I can > > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of > > what Hirano-san did a while back. You are asking permission to use > > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be > > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution. So even > > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would > > not be transferred to the 3rd parties. > > > > Expressed another way: > > > > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights: > > > > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical > > elements that you have reused. > > > > 2) Your rights to your original creation. > > > > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks. > > > > > > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is. > > > > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1. > > You determine the license you want. > > > > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo. We've done that before. > > > > But that is purely from your perspective. What about the perspective > > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD? > > > > #1 and #2 are OK. Open source licenses transfer rights. That is a > > core principle. But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so > > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download > > your artwork. And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that > > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with > > the "Get it here!" logo. > > > > Hopefully this makes sense. > > > > -Rob > > > > > > Well given this response...more questions > > Rob, are you saying, that since some of the "artwork" on the site that > contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though > these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing > perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) > that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission > because of the logo inclusion? > > This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me. > >
Howdy Kay, Rob Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps. Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed. Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything, I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of the trademarks with the project directly. Least that is how I see it. Thanks for your feedback, //drew
