Re: proposal to change GNOME's trademark guidelines
This section is quite broad, and is only modified by the somewhat vague Fair Use section. Unfortunately, if taken literally, it would prevent On Thu, July 28, 2011 4:24 pm, Alan Cox wrote: The Fair Use section has another problem btw when someone is looking at this. Fair Use has no meaning in most legal systems outside the USA. I wasn't going to get into this level of detail here, but actually Fair Use doesn't really have any meaning in trademark law the way it does in copyright law in the United States. There is a concept of nominative use, which basically gets to what this section is talking about. The policy does go on to describe what is meant in this context so i don't think it's too problematic as a term here. To be honest, I would probably rewrite a bunch of the policy if we were starting from scratch but I'm trying to make a narrow fix to address a real problem that has become an obstacle. We may want to rewrite the whole policy at some point, but I think that's a lot more work. I'm proposing this additional language (which is based on text in other free software trademark policies) to be added in the same section, after that paragraph: And that should be reviewed by someone experienced in trademark law. I'm sure some of the corporate members can help. I know how much fun Red Hat had trying to get the Fedora mark right. I'm not the world's foremost expert in trademark law but I am a lawyer and have worked in this area in my tenure at the Software Freedom Law Center. The language that I proposed was reviewed in other contexts by other lawyers at SFLC as well as lawyers at various companies that were involved in the projects that adopted policies with this language in it. (That said, I'd be happy to get other lawyers involved if it's not overkill.) This requirement is waived in all contexts where such marks are not normally included, such as email, online discussion, package names, non-graphical advertisements (when permitted), and academic papers. We encourage the use of the symbol whenever possible, but recognize that many non-commercial and informal uses will omit it. This for example allows the use of gnome for packages which are not gnome packages or to advertise products that are nothing to do with Gnome using google adwords (eg buying the Gnome word and pointing it at xfce.org 8)). snip Actually, you'd have to cross reference this against the very first item in the Prohibited Use section: Do not make reference to GNOME or GNOME Trademarks in a manner that is false or misleading. The proposed addition is just a waiver from a requirement to add notices. It relies on the prohibitions elsewhere to make sure that the behavior you describe can't happen. If it weren't for the prohibition against false or misleading use, then even without adding the new text, your scenario would be permitted -- others could use the GNOME name to point to non-GNOME software-- provided they include the notices. The policy must be taken as a whole. However I don't want us to add any confusion so would it make an easier read to add Subject to the provisions contained elsewhere in these guidelines, including those contained in the Prohibited Use section...? We want to make sure that people can use GNOME software and talk about it freely without unreasonable restrictions. The aim is to adopt this amendment to the policy in two weeks if there are no objections. Public discussion here about it would be great, and folks can contact me privately too if they want to. This seems the wrong tack to me. Giving clear examples of fair use, and clear, tight ones so you don't make the package mistake would sort this out. Trademark requirements are quite specific and defining some examples would provide clarity and assurance surely ? It's really essential such changes go through lawyers. Sad the world works that way but in the case of trademark that's how it happens to be. I think you're asking for a major change in the GNOME trademark policy, which I'm not against, but sounds like a lot of work. I'm really focused right now on fixing a problem quickly that folks are complaining about. I agree that the policy as a whole could be improved so we can definitely start an initiative to review and improve it if you want. karen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: proposal to change GNOME's trademark guidelines
I'm not the world's foremost expert in trademark law but I am a lawyer and have worked in this area in my tenure at the Software Freedom Law Center. The language that I proposed was reviewed in other contexts by other lawyers at SFLC as well as lawyers at various companies that were involved in the projects that adopted policies with this language in it. (That said, I'd be happy to get other lawyers involved if it's not overkill.) That answers my question, and from the rest of the reply it seems my other worries are addressed, thought about and dealt with. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: proposal to change GNOME's trademark guidelines
Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011, à 20:13 -0400, Karen Sandler a écrit : This requirement is waived in all contexts where such marks are not normally included, such as email, online discussion, package names, non-graphical advertisements (when permitted), and academic papers. We encourage the use of the symbol whenever possible, but recognize that many non-commercial and informal uses will omit it. We want to make sure that people can use GNOME software and talk about it freely without unreasonable restrictions. The aim is to adopt this amendment to the policy in two weeks if there are no objections. Public discussion here about it would be great, and folks can contact me privately too if they want to. +1 for this change. But I wonder if we shouldn't go further: I find it really ugly that we have to put the TM next to the GNOME logo on our t-shirts, for instance... If this is covered by the many non-commercial and informal uses that will omit the symbol, then I actually wonder: when should it not be omitted? Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: proposal to change GNOME's trademark guidelines
This section is quite broad, and is only modified by the somewhat vague Fair Use section. Unfortunately, if taken literally, it would prevent The Fair Use section has another problem btw when someone is looking at this. Fair Use has no meaning in most legal systems outside the USA. I'm proposing this additional language (which is based on text in other free software trademark policies) to be added in the same section, after that paragraph: And that should be reviewed by someone experienced in trademark law. I'm sure some of the corporate members can help. I know how much fun Red Hat had trying to get the Fedora mark right. This requirement is waived in all contexts where such marks are not normally included, such as email, online discussion, package names, non-graphical advertisements (when permitted), and academic papers. We encourage the use of the symbol whenever possible, but recognize that many non-commercial and informal uses will omit it. This for example allows the use of gnome for packages which are not gnome packages or to advertise products that are nothing to do with Gnome using google adwords (eg buying the Gnome word and pointing it at xfce.org 8)). Careless, and why a lawyer should be involved in such work because once you've trashed your trademark it's near impossible to undo the damage. We want to make sure that people can use GNOME software and talk about it freely without unreasonable restrictions. The aim is to adopt this amendment to the policy in two weeks if there are no objections. Public discussion here about it would be great, and folks can contact me privately too if they want to. This seems the wrong tack to me. Giving clear examples of fair use, and clear, tight ones so you don't make the package mistake would sort this out. Trademark requirements are quite specific and defining some examples would provide clarity and assurance surely ? It's really essential such changes go through lawyers. Sad the world works that way but in the case of trademark that's how it happens to be. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: proposal to change GNOME's trademark guidelines
On Thu, July 28, 2011 4:12 am, Vincent Untz wrote: Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011, à 20:13 -0400, Karen Sandler a écrit : This requirement is waived in all contexts where such marks are not normally included, such as email, online discussion, package names, non-graphical advertisements (when permitted), and academic papers. We encourage the use of the symbol whenever possible, but recognize that many non-commercial and informal uses will omit it. We want to make sure that people can use GNOME software and talk about it freely without unreasonable restrictions. The aim is to adopt this amendment to the policy in two weeks if there are no objections. Public discussion here about it would be great, and folks can contact me privately too if they want to. +1 for this change. But I wonder if we shouldn't go further: I find it really ugly that we have to put the TM next to the GNOME logo on our t-shirts, for instance... If this is covered by the many non-commercial and informal uses that will omit the symbol, then I actually wonder: when should it not be omitted? I think that the use of the logo on a t-shirt isn't an informal use (and maybe not a non-commercial one either, sorry for the double negatives). Of course, these guidelines only apply to third parties, not to the holder of the mark so if the GNOME Foundation itself wanted to make shirts without the notices it could. Using the notices is a good idea because it lets people know that there is a mark and that it's being used in certain ways. The law looks to whether the mark was well known as such and notice is a part of this. (And we'd want to make sure we protect the mark enough to stop others from abusing it.) As with most aspects of trademark law, it's really about whether people would be confused about the mark and notices help with that. Notices can also be really small :) You definitely make an interesting point, and sometimes trademark policies require only the use of the notices either the first time it's used or in some prominent place. I think adding this new provision generally makes it much easier to do what we are already doing. There are also other parts of the guidelines that could also be revisited and improved, but it's probably worth fixing the problem that we have in front of us now and that's easy to fix. I don't think we should allow third parties to use our logo on shirts without including our notice. The Foundation could also grant exceptions on a case by case basis if that makes sense (the policy does invite people to email and ask for more permissions). I'm at OSCON so sorry if I'm slow to respond! karen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
proposal to change GNOME's trademark guidelines
Various people have pointed out that a part of the GNOME Foundation Trademark Usage Guidelines for Third Parties could be improved. The Guidelines are at: http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/ The section entitled Use Proper Notice of Trademark reads: Identify GNOME Trademarks appropriately as a registered trademark (using the circled-R symbol ®), or as an unregistered trademark (using the TM symbol ) or an unregistered service mark (using the SM symbol #8480;). Check the list of GNOME Trademarks found at http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/ to verify the correct symbol to use for each name. This section is quite broad, and is only modified by the somewhat vague Fair Use section. Unfortunately, if taken literally, it would prevent the use of the name GNOME in emails and package names without using the appropriate notice characters, as well as in other places where it would probably be a hassle to include. We don't want this, right? I'm proposing this additional language (which is based on text in other free software trademark policies) to be added in the same section, after that paragraph: This requirement is waived in all contexts where such marks are not normally included, such as email, online discussion, package names, non-graphical advertisements (when permitted), and academic papers. We encourage the use of the symbol whenever possible, but recognize that many non-commercial and informal uses will omit it. We want to make sure that people can use GNOME software and talk about it freely without unreasonable restrictions. The aim is to adopt this amendment to the policy in two weeks if there are no objections. Public discussion here about it would be great, and folks can contact me privately too if they want to. thanks! karen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
