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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Amazingly enough, we have owned the trademark since 2002 (we
changed our name in 2001, and it took that long to get the
trademark registered in the US). There was _no_ hope of a
Foundation at the time. Yet, by your own admission, you and
others continued to invest marketing money in the brand.
Because we believed (and still want to believe) in the good of all the
parties involved. I guess when we started investing in promoting the
software there was no confusion with the name, now there is.
The more amazing part is that now that we will transfer the
IP to the Foundation, and give an _irrevocable_ license to
the Foundation for the use of the word ZOPE to brand the
software (which can _never_ be taken back, even if someone
acquires us), but somehow, _now_ you are worried about
investing in the Zope brand. I simply can't connect the
I guess its because IANAL, but I just:
1) Don't understand how an irrevocable license works.
2) Am still unclear of licencing issues, when Rob spoke at EPC about the
foundation it was very unclear as to who would make decisions on
licensing, in some cases ZC would have the final say, and in some cases
the ZF. It just seemed confusing to me.
3) ZC is a very small, yet very powerful part of the Zope Community
(maybe this is just my view from Europe). Can you explain to me exactly
what benefits ZC has in holding the trademarks as opposed to them being
held by an independant foundation? The fact that ZC doesn't want them
to be held by an independant 3rd party makes me think something sinister
is planned on the horizon.
Two months ago, you would invest, when there was no
Foundation on the horizon, and the Zope software could be
revoked by a future acquirer of ZC. Now, there will be a
guaranteed future for the Zope software and brand forever,
independent of ZC, but that's somehow now "risky" for you to
Yes a future acquirer of ZC could try and revoke the software, but it is
licensed under the ZPL so is joint ownership. I think this creates
enough of an incentive to prevent this happening as much of the code is
contributed by people other than ZC.
I agree that Rob's suggestion was a good one, and the fact
that I agreed to it shows that we are more than willing to
work with the community to find _reasonable_ ways to solve
Yes, it is reasonable and it is a start of dialogue. This is a distinct
improvement over last week's approach of 'We are not negotiating
anything. Hand it over or we set our lawyers on you'. When I
*specifically* asked Lois if something like this was possible she
re-iterated that you would not be willing to enter any further discussion.
Perhaps European law is different that US law, but Rob
stated clearly that the contract would name ZC's successors
and assigns, which makes it legally binding on anyone who
purchases ZC as well. In the US, that contract would survive
the sale of ZC. I see no reason to be paranoid about that
eventuality, as long as you would trust the initial contract
between ZC and the ZF.
OK, in which case, that makes sense to me. Combined with Rob's idea of
letting the board of the ZF make the decisions on licensing issues I
think I personally am happy.
Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Business Vision on the Internet
http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901
Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -