Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hello Bernhard, Le Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:44:07 +0100, Bernhard Dippold bernh...@familie-dippold.at a écrit : Hi Charles, * CC'ing the design list... (follow-up on the logo design should be there, on the general questions here on steering-discuss) Charles-H. Schulz schrieb: Hi, @Bernhard: now we just need the logos without the TDF mention to be put on a page with its source on the wiki, and I think we'll be ready to announce our trademark policy Do you think you or Christoph can do that? Great to hear that - but I didn't know that this logo is a precondition for the announcement. No, it's not really a precondition. We could go ahead but then people would ask us: where are the logos we're supposed to use? I'm sorry that we didn't finalize the logo - main problem is, that there is a reasonable reason to modify the logo a bit, but we didn't manage to discuss the advantages and disadvantages in detail. As you know there are important task to work on *right now* - and we still do this without having defined the general visual basis for our community... absolutely. Following the Branding Guidelines it is possible to use one or two parts of the tripartite logo (symbol, libreoffice text and TDF text) alone, so it is possible to create the logo without TDF subline by using the present logo. yes, that's the point. I don't know how strong you see the relationship between the logo and the trademark announcement, but I can live very well with this version of our logo for some time - perhaps until the release of LibreOffice 3.4, when we might introduce the updated logo (just my personal opinion - we'll discuss this on the design list). When I find the time tonight, I'll be working on the logos.binge thanks. To me it's a practical issue. We can release the TM policy now. But we won't be able to enable people to do the right thing because the logos won't be ready. TM policy exists in its own right, as it covers other areas and even other aspects of the question, so we could release it now although I fear it will end up being confusing. Just to be sure I understood how you (and the trademark policy?) want to propose the use of our logos: a) *The product* itself contains the *logo with TDF subline*. We provide these binaries via our mirror system. Distributors of the unmodified binaries are allowed to distribute the product, so they distribute it with the TDF subline inside the product. The mention TDF only applies to what comes out of TDF and the mirrors listed here. But you cannot use the TDF mention on a DVD that's not an official DVD from TDF. So yes, we're talking about unmodified binaries downloaded via our mirroring system, which means: you can only get them by downloading the binaries here or in the specific case of the linux distros (that's explained in the TM policy). b) *We* refer to the product and our community on our website, on marketing material, fair booths and other means by a *logo with TDF subline*. Yes. This is only allowed for - official community representatives (SC and board members described in the bylaws). - officially approved international, language based or regional teams (including TDF members approved by the Membership Committee, so their work is led by the Community Bylaws) in consent with their dedicated mailing lists. If there is any doubt on the team's legitimation, a formal request here at the steering-discuss list is necessary. Yes. c) *Single community members* and *other people* referring to our product and the community are not allowed to use the logo with TDF subline. This should avoid misinterpretation of their references as official community statements and presentations. Yes. They should use the new *logo without this subline* we're going to provide. Yes. What logo should be used if external references point to the foundation? Well, I don't think we have one, but we could come up with one. ATM, only external references pointing to TDF should use the full logo with the TDF subline. Do we need a logo for The Document Foundation (once it is established) without the LibreOffice text? Do you think of another possibility to distinguish official usage and external reference?binge It might be helpful, although we certainly can release the TM policy without this particular one. Here's what we can do: I will copy and paste parts of your email on a wiki page specifically for the logo usage. I will link from and to it on the TM policy page as it fully complements it. Then, I would like us to be ready asap on this. The LibreOffice logo without the TDF subline and its sources should be available, and as soon as it is, we can release the TM policy. Otherwise it won't make a lot of sense. What do you think? Charles. Best regards Bernhard -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive:
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hello Charles, all, one single point to clarify: Charles-H. Schulz schrieb: [...] Bernhard Dippold wrote: a) *The product* itself contains the *logo with TDF subline*. We provide these binaries via our mirror system. Distributors of the unmodified binaries are allowed to distribute the product, so they distribute it with the TDF subline inside the product. The mention TDF only applies to what comes out of TDF and the mirrors listed here. But you cannot use the TDF mention on a DVD that's not an official DVD from TDF. So yes, we're talking about unmodified binaries downloaded via our mirroring system, which means: you can only get them by downloading the binaries here or in the specific case of the linux distros (that's explained in the TM policy). This could be understood as if it would not be allowed to distribute the unmodified binaries by other means than via our mirror service. In my understanding it has to be clear that people are allowed to distribute our product, burn it on CD/DVD, copy it on USB-Stick or any other device as long as the binaries have not been modified. This product will (of course, as it is unmodified) contain the logo with TDF subline. But when they refer to this product, print the logo on the label or cover, advertise it on their homepage or present it on a download page, they have to use the logo without subline. Even if they distribute our unchanged product it is necessary to avoid the impression as they would represent the community and/or TDF as producer of the office suite. Did you mean it this way? Best regards Bernhard -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi, @Bernhard: now we just need the logos without the TDF mention to be put on a page with its source on the wiki, and I think we'll be ready to announce our trademark policy Do you think you or Christoph can do that? Thank you, Charles. 2011/2/15 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Hi, I uploaded the latest changes and modified the text accordingly, it incorporates many, if not most of the changes from RH: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy best, Charles. Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:14 +, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit : On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 10:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote: are we good on the TM policy? I'd like to move forward on this... I am, of course. Oh ! did we fold in the Redhat advice ? (which seemed good to me) - I believe we did not, it would be worth someone carefully doing that I suppose. ATB, Michael. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi Charles, * CC'ing the design list... (follow-up on the logo design should be there, on the general questions here on steering-discuss) Charles-H. Schulz schrieb: Hi, @Bernhard: now we just need the logos without the TDF mention to be put on a page with its source on the wiki, and I think we'll be ready to announce our trademark policy Do you think you or Christoph can do that? Great to hear that - but I didn't know that this logo is a precondition for the announcement. I'm sorry that we didn't finalize the logo - main problem is, that there is a reasonable reason to modify the logo a bit, but we didn't manage to discuss the advantages and disadvantages in detail. As you know there are important task to work on *right now* - and we still do this without having defined the general visual basis for our community... Following the Branding Guidelines it is possible to use one or two parts of the tripartite logo (symbol, libreoffice text and TDF text) alone, so it is possible to create the logo without TDF subline by using the present logo. I don't know how strong you see the relationship between the logo and the trademark announcement, but I can live very well with this version of our logo for some time - perhaps until the release of LibreOffice 3.4, when we might introduce the updated logo (just my personal opinion - we'll discuss this on the design list). When I find the time tonight, I'll be working on the logos. Just to be sure I understood how you (and the trademark policy?) want to propose the use of our logos: a) *The product* itself contains the *logo with TDF subline*. We provide these binaries via our mirror system. Distributors of the unmodified binaries are allowed to distribute the product, so they distribute it with the TDF subline inside the product. b) *We* refer to the product and our community on our website, on marketing material, fair booths and other means by a *logo with TDF subline*. This is only allowed for - official community representatives (SC and board members described in the bylaws). - officially approved international, language based or regional teams (including TDF members approved by the Membership Committee, so their work is led by the Community Bylaws) in consent with their dedicated mailing lists. If there is any doubt on the team's legitimation, a formal request here at the steering-discuss list is necessary. c) *Single community members* and *other people* referring to our product and the community are not allowed to use the logo with TDF subline. This should avoid misinterpretation of their references as official community statements and presentations. They should use the new *logo without this subline* we're going to provide. What logo should be used if external references point to the foundation? Do we need a logo for The Document Foundation (once it is established) without the LibreOffice text? Do you think of another possibility to distinguish official usage and external reference? Best regards Bernhard -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi, I uploaded the latest changes and modified the text accordingly, it incorporates many, if not most of the changes from RH: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy best, Charles. Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:14 +, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit : On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 10:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote: are we good on the TM policy? I'd like to move forward on this... I am, of course. Oh ! did we fold in the Redhat advice ? (which seemed good to me) - I believe we did not, it would be worth someone carefully doing that I suppose. ATB, Michael. -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 28/01/11 13:47, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi Michael, I suppose they need permission :-) With the caveat of the fair use exception, which does not require permission. The notion of fair use varies from country to country. In some countries, you are even allowed to use registered trademarks in parodied form, without impugning the TM holder' rights. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Hi Alex, On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 15:00 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote: I suppose they need permission :-) .. With the caveat of the fair use exception, which does not require Sure, sure - however, we cannot write a single document for every jurisdiction that covers all notions of fair-use, and is yet readable, and helpful. Certainly - copyright only works in some jurisdictions - but we still have licenses left and right that assume it works everywhere :-) So - do you see a problem with broadly laying out what we do and don't expect ? Honestly, I expect the SC to be very forgiving for all legitimate and constructive users. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 21/01/11 16:41, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : Hi all, A lightning speed reading of the guidelines brought the following thought to my mind : If you are selling services for TDF software (for example, support), you may not tie the download of the product with the purchase of the service. The download of TDF product using TDF Trademark may not be connected in any way to the purchase of a service. You must provide a statement that (i) TDF software is available for free and link directly to our site; (ii) the purchase of your service is separate from the download of TDF software; and (iii) your service is not affiliated with TDF. This does not cover the case where, as at present with OOo, you have scurrilous people offering downloads (for Windows installers) which, although not requiring the user to sign up for a paid contract (and yes, I know that these exist too), do require the user to pay for an activation code. This can be argued as not providing a service, but rather as a product sale, depending on how strictly the term service is interpreted in a given jurisdiction. It might be wise to enlarge the coverage of the above to include forbidding tying activation codes to downloads where the mark(s) are represented. I will go over the guidelines again and post again here once I have had a deeper think about it all. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
