One thing to add: we have a mailinglist dealing with such kind of questions. Please also ask at [email protected] (you can cc this list of course).
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: > While a logo might be open source, trademark law will restrict what you > can do with it. It is important to recognise that logos are kind of a > special case in open source. > > Upayavira > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 02:23 PM, John Blossom wrote: >> Copyright is claimed for the logo by Google but the word Wave is too >> generic and used too widely to be likely to be trademarked in association >> with the logo. The main concern that I have is that Apache should ensure >> a >> more clear ownership of the logo. But if it is used only on open source >> projects, then by definition CC should be fine for now anyway. >> On Jun 4, 2013 3:04 PM, "Alfredo Abambres" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Was the OpenWave logo submitted to the organization responsible for >> > certification of TM or R in the US or any other country by Google or >> > Apache? >> > >> > If not, then we cannot (legally) use the TM symbol or the "trademark" word. >> > >> > AFAIK, (and I don't know much) the logo was designed and set to use a CC >> > attribution license. No legal registration happened, but I may be wrong >> > about the registration. Anyhow, if that happened, then a legal document >> > should be in someone's archive. >> > >> > Wave On. >> > >> > http://alfredo.abambres.com >> > >> > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:10 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > That does seem to be the one that's referenced in the rights page. I am >> > not >> > > sure where they stand in clarifying the rights ownership transfer with >> > > Google, but either way it seems to be the right one. >> > > >> > > All the best, >> > > >> > > John Blossom >> > > >> > > at 6:20 AM, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Yep, I think we have rights only for the open wave logo. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Angus Turner <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I know for sure we have the rights for the Open Wave one, not sure >> > > about >> > > > > the wiab. I personally think we should go for the openwave, and can >> > add >> > > > the >> > > > > trademark to it if needed. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks >> > > > > Angus Turner >> > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Ali Lown <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Christian has raised the point that we need to attach 'Trademark' >> > to >> > > > > > the wave logo before we can release. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We seem to be using a different logo in the project to the one on >> > the >> > > > > > website: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/branches/wave-0.4-release/war/static/logo.png >> > > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/wave/images/OpenWaveLogo.png >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Which of these should we be using going forward? (Presumably the >> > Open >> > > > > > Wave logo?) (Do we have rights over the wave-in-a-box one?) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Comments? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ali >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
