Great, Ross, thanks for your clarifications. -- With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, http://dataved.ru/ +7 916 562 8095
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 July 2012 13:18, Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks Ross, >> it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not >> yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would >> be simpler to understand > > Absolutely. However the specifics right now are so varied that it is > clear the maintainer of the openmeetings.de site has not read the > trademark policy. For example: > > "On websites, hyperlinks to the relevant project homepage and to the > ASF should be added" > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution > > I've not conducted a review of the openmeetings.de site, or of any > other open meetings related site. My goal is not to pick on specific > items on a single page - that would be unfair. My goal is only to > raise awareness of the trademark policy so that people can, I hope, > take appropriate action in their own time. > >> I have investigated the following >> http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22 >> >> It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are >> not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases >> are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise. > > Generally speaking if the PPMC is satisfied with any specific use of > their marks then the ASF will be. However, the PPMC needs to know what > is acceptable and what is not. Hence the PPMC members need to know > what the policy is. hence this thread. The issue with trademarks is > that if we don't protect them then they are no longer valid. This > could be damaging to the whole community. > > I'm happy to give you my opinion on each case, but I'm speaking only > as an ASF mentor. I am not a member of the trademarks committee. > >> * We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our >> product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build >> a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly >> speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not >> mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though). > > Strictly speaking it is Apache Openmeetings (incubating) - see > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html > > However, use in mailing lists etc. is not really the concern here, > it's in press, websites etc. Furthermore, it's only really necessary > on first use, just as the Apache part can be dropped after first use. > >> * We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of >> Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same. >> If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis. > > See above - OpenOffice does, as far as I am aware conform to this policy. > >> * The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch >> for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open >> proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was >> to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's >> sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of >> sponsorship. > > This is perfectly OK as long as the activity is outside of the ASF. > That is it's not the ASF offering these incentives it is some third > party who conforms to the trademark policy in their engagements. The > ASF does not, and never will, pay for software development. Third > parties are free to pay for anything they want. > >> Consider the quote, >> Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software >> Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be >> used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of >> any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind. >> >> This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors >> Apache and some particular Apache products. >> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/ > > Yes, ASF and many organisations sponsor the ASF but they are not > allowed any special rights over our marks as a result. They do not > sponsor our projects, they sponsor the foundation so it can provide > services for *all* our projects not any specific project. Using our > marks in factual statements is always allowed (no policy we write can > change that), so MS can say they sponsor the foundation (fact) but > they cannot say they sponsor Apache Foo since we don't accept > targetted donations for projects. > >> Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers, >> I cannot refer to the Apache project. > > You are raising money for your *developers*. That is fine. You are not > raising money for the *project*. > > So you can say "I will pay developers to work on Apache Foo" but you > can't say "I sponsor Apache Foo". > >> My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here. > > That would be for trademarks@ to do if necessary. > > Ross
