I don't think brand-building - raising awareness of what we do - is an
eithor/or proposition killing collaboration. However, I guarantee 100%
that a weak trademark policy will lead to no awareness raised. The
challenge of marketing is to get people who don't know or care about
something to do so.
This wouldn't be as necessary if the distros had strong brands and
could promote Sugar. However, unfortunately they don't. In our
ecosystem, the strongest brand is the little green $100 computer with
the crank, the image most people likely have of the project. Sadly,
none of OLPC's brand
Quick comments : I agree with C.Scott's remarks 100%. Being too
strict about copyright or trademark is an easy way to kill
collaboration in the cradle, and Mozilla's done most of this
(including guidelines for logo modification and reuse) very well.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:43 PM, C. Scott
[Again restricting post to iaep because I cannot cross-post]
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:59:09PM +0100, Sean DALY wrote:
If we extend our trademarks use freely, we 1) run the risk of losing
them 2) will be unable to build awareness of the brand.
The same is true of the opposite and I fear this
Hi Sean,
I don't see how the opposite is true. Just look at Sony. To be
clear, by freely I mean without conditions. The snag is that I
don't see how we can be sure we have a legal handle on acceptance
of our conditions without an explicit license. Again, this is a
change from
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
A budding brand like ours needs protection to grow, but also needs
exposure to grow. Approving trademark licensing applications on the
basis of a functioning e-mail address will not assure our brand's
protection - we need to
