On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano <khir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Donald Harbison <dpharbi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Martin, >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: >>> > >>> >> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> >>> Hi Martin; >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel >>> >>>>> <martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo >>> >>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software >>> >>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream >>> >>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Please let us know your plans. >>> >>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of >>> >>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team >>> >>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0 >>> >>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe >>> >>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm >>> >>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the >>> >>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO. >>> >> >>> >> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache >>> lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF. >>> >> >>> >> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to >>> see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's >>> Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work. >>> >> >>> >> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work >>> here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC >>> that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the >>> excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release. >>> >> >>> >> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim >>> release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging >>> questions you might have. >>> > >>> > What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and >>> Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, >>> but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people >>> involved. >>> > >>> > The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that >>> OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation. >>> > >>> > The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project. >>> > >>> > I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly >>> respectful actions beforehand. >>> >>> The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place! >>> >>> > Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org! >>> > The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine >>> article is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen! >>> >>> Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article is >>> not under threat. >>> >>> It has been a month since: >>> >>> >>> http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev >>> >>> I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team OOo >>> to the project, I know I do. >>> >> >> Absolutely agree. These guys are very welcome to align with this project. >> >>> >>> It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC >>> about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand. >>> >>> +1 We will continue to ask for this, but in the meantime, the web site >> language you cite above must come down. There is no 'threat' to >> OpenOffice.org. > > If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as > project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and > trademark? >
I don't think so. Part of protecting a brand is to prevent "confusing similarity"., For example, we could not go out and sell soft drinks under the name "Coca-Cola.org" or pizza under the name "Pizza Hut.net". -Rob > Thanks, > khirano >
