[Zope] Re: Re: Zope Foundation Update

2005-07-21 Thread Hadar Pedhazur
Matt, unfrotuntately (for me), you make a number of very
good points, so I will break my self-imposed silence to
respond ;-)

Unfortunately for everyone else, this continues the thread,
but at least it feels to me like we're de-escalating and
hopefully actually getting somewhere good, faster...

Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
 Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the
 ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the
 word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the
 LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_
 ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our
 base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in
 Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our
 website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had
 already registered).

 I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer.

 A few points I want to clear up... the next two paragraphs I write are 
 about technicalities, I am not refering to any moral right or wrong, or 
 who did what etc.

 In my view the confusion is apparent.  If I go to zope.org I see the same 
 logo (admittedly with the word community added to it).  If I install Zope 
 and go to the ZMI one of the first things I see is the Zope logo.  I can 
 clearly see how people associate the logo with the software.  Very few 
 clients (and potential clients) we talk to in the UK are even aware of 
 ZC... *in their mind* Zope is a CMS not a company.

You are absolutely correct. In certain usages, we try to
make the distinction obvious (like Community being part of
the logo, and certainly in adding Corporation in our own
logo). That said, our Logo Usage page on zope.com, which
has been there for a _very_ long time, makes it clear that
we own the trademark for _all_ variations of the mark, and
that we _freely_ license it (without any signatures!) for
certain usage, and license it under a contract for all other
usages (most of those are free too!):

http://www.zope.com/about_us/legal/zope_logo_usage.html

The point is that even the logo in the free Zope software is
owned by us. It just happens to be freely licensed, with
no fee or contract. That doesn't make it available to be
registered as an owned trademark by someone else.

We don't care if potential clients of yours don't associate
the logo with us, that's obviously fine. We _do_ care if
they associate the logo with ZEA and nobody else. If they
associate it with Zope the software, that's fine too, and
doesn't require a license, but that still leaves us as the
owners of the mark.

 And please please please remember that there is no such thing as 
 'registered the trademark in Europe'.  There are many companies in Europe 
 and the trademarks have to be registered in specific countries.

Again, you are correct. I noted in my previous response to
you that you were also correct that we picked countries that
were economically interesting to us.

 Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More
 importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a
 phone call that they believe that there were deals that they
 could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now
 extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the
 Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe
 would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage
 point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!?

 You are twisting the truth here -- I wish I had recorded the phone call 
 now to prevent the chinese whispers :)  On the call to Lois, Xavier said 
 that there are certain possibilities of using Zope for EU projects which 
 would be hampered by a corporation (ie ZC) owning the trademark to the OSS 
 software.  ZEA does not want the trademark.  Repeat.  ZEA does not want 
 the trademark.

Huh? ZEA does not represent everyone in the Zope Community
(as Rob has already pointed out) and worse, does not even
represent all commercial Zope companies in Europe. How does
ZEA holding the trademark make an EU project less hampered
than ZC holding it? You can keep repeating that ZEA doesn't
want the trademark, and yet, you registered it...

 it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the facts
 are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an
 example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register
 our own marks in Europe, which we did.

 Yes, you are still mis-understanding the facts.  Europe consists of many 
 countries, of which you registered the mark in just six - Germany, 
 Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Italy.

This is the third time that I am publicly agreeing that we made a choice.

 ZEA then went on to further protect the mark registering it in: Austria, 
 Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyrus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, 
 Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine

Really? We registered the base word Zope, from which all of
our other marks derive (except for 

[Zope] Re: Re: Zope Foundation Update

2005-07-20 Thread Hadar Pedhazur
Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

This has to be one of the more ill-informed, offensive posts
that I have seen from a member of the Zope community, and
that's saying a lot.

It's obvious that there's a good ventriloquist pulling
Chris' strings, since he's making assertions that are so
easily proven incorrect that they are laughable.

 I'm not sure muppetism applies to the Zope community, it appears to be 
 Zope Corporation who are coming out of this looking less than clever.

Yes, of course, we are looking less than clever. We offer up
a Foundation. We give all of our ZPL copyrighted code to
this Foundation. We give committers free membership and an
equal number of board seats to vendors who pay for those
board seats. Somehow, we're bad guys in this.

I agree. Trying to work with some of the people in this
community make me personally feel less than clever...

ZEA takes marks _directly from our website_, registers them
as their own, and they are white knights. You're a genius.

 It's a shame, because really, they should be the ones benefitting from the 
 community they've created, but instead they're more and more isolating 
 themselves from a community which is finally starting to realise that 
 Zope's continued popularity is not predicated on the survival of Zope 
 Corporation.

See above. More and more we are isolating ourselves, by
joining sprints internationally, contributing our code to a
Foundation that _we_ are bringing to the community, and by
offering to participate completely in the ECM project as
well. I can see how this is isolationist. Again, you're a
genius.

 I hope Lois in particular reads this and understands that you can't bully 
 an open source community, and doing so is likely going have much worse 
 consequences for the bully in the medium to long term than it will for the 
 people being bullied.

And now, for the ultimate in idiocy.

Lois has not _once_ communicated directly with the
community on anything other than announcements regarding
training. Certainly, she has never bullied the community
on any topic, including the Foundation.

So, how do I know you are being manipulated into making
stupid public statements? Someone obviously had to tell you
that Lois was involved in the ZEA discussions. Want to know
how? Probably not, since you were stupid enough to parrot
someone else's words, but for the benefit of everyone else
who has a brain, and cares to really understand the truth,
here goes:

Rob and I had the only interactions with any ZEA members,
and they were _exclusively_ with Xavier Heymans and Paul
Everitt. After one exchange with Paul, he requested to be
let out of the continued discussions due to potential
conflicts of interest (which we respected).

Lois received an email out of the clear blue from another
ZEA member (who had not been on any of the emails between
Rob, Paul, Xavier and myself). He reached out to Lois asking
her to participate in a conference call with him, another
ZEA member (also not on any previous communications) and
Xavier. Rob and I were not invited to participate in this
call.

Lois was _not_ in the loop on our side either previous to
this attempt to reach out to her. The three ZEA members
discussed the issue with Lois for 70 minutes. I doubt they
reached out to her because they thought she was the bully
in our bunch.

At the end of the conversation, Lois came to Rob and I and
supported some of the requests that ZEA made in terms of
compensation for the transfer. The amount that was
originally requested (20,000 EUROS, plus additional
transfer fees) was absurd to me, and even though Lois was
willing to find a middle ground, she was the messenger
that related to them that management rejected their offer.

Three days later, Lois wrote back a note to Xavier (this
past Friday), again playing the messenger, with a offer to
pay any expenses that we otherwise would have had to pay to
be the original registrars of the marks. It is my contention
that if someone steals something from you, you shouldn't
have to pay them a premium to get it back, should you?

We have had no response to that note, and we informed them
more than a week in advance that we would make this matter
public if they didn't respond. Obviously, they didn't mind
it being made public, or they would have found a way to work
it out.

Now, let's continue with the history lesson, this time
concentrating on me, rather than Lois.

I invested in Zope Corporation (then Digital Creations) in
October 1998. I was the largest investor (using my personal
money) then, and through two additional rounds of funding
remain the largest single personal investor (by a long
shot!). So, my money is where my mouth is in this company.

It was _me_, and me alone that suggested in November of 1998
that we open source the software (before it was even called
Zope).

It was me that discussed the licensing issues with Bruce
Perens to come up with ZPL 1.0. It was me who discussed the

[Zope] Re: Re: Zope Foundation Update

2005-07-20 Thread Hadar Pedhazur
Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Florent Guillaume wrote:
 The current state of what ZC proposes doesn't prevent anyone from doing
 anything reasonable.

 Give them your hand, and they'll ask for your arm...

 Indeed. I don't have any problem with ZC keeping the trademarks, but why 
 are they tying the creation of the foundation onto their retreival of 
 their lost marks?

 The two seem totally unconnected to me...

Considering that we have agreed to license our marks to the
Foundation, and that the lawyers tell us that this is the
first step, we have to have _clear title_ to them in order
to have a valid license agreement.

If there's an ongoing trademark dispute, then we can't
cleanly license the marks to the Foundation. It seemed
obvious to us in our post that we were explaining this, but
it must not have been clear enough. Is it clear now?



___
Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )