Hi, On 12-09-19, at 03:10 , Issac Goldstand <is...@volo-net.com> wrote:
> On 17/09/2012 19:01, Dave Fisher wrote: >> On Sep 15, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> >> 8. Going through the one-click purchase of the $0.00 software, I was not >> sent the executable. Instead, I was sent an "Amazon OpenOffice 34 by >> Apache" downloader executable. I ran it. It is a simple dialog with a >> progress bar, the gull button, and a message that the item can be downloaded >> again from my software library. It downloads the software. It doesn't say >> where. >> >> This name is a branding issue that must be fixed immediately. >> >> This should probably be handled by Shane as VP of branding. >> > I kinda doubt it. Shane can correct me if I'm way off here, but > remember that the Apache license explicitly permits redistribution of > software, so in general you have 2 big categories of downloads: > > <IANAL> > > 1) Folks redistributing the exact artifacts calling the "Apache > OpenOffice" - while this is technically a trademark infringement, the > nature of channels which would distribute like this is usually not > something that the foundation and/or project would be overly concerned > about; after all, it's just like another mirror - it's still the exact > same software in the same box (or close enough to not matter, although > packaging changes would certainly be a valid reason for concern), so the > worst that would normally happen there is a slap on the wrist if they > don't have the correct trademark notices on the page, and we noticed it. > > 2) Folks redistributing the exact artifacts or modified artifacts > calling them something other than "Apache OpenOffice" (or other > trademarks that we own, like old OOo trademarks), in which case the > license also permits it, since they're not claiming to "be" AOO > (although use of *our* gulls can be an issue).. This covers all of the > eBay offers, all of the bundled download offers, and whatever else might > annoy us. I'm pretty sure that such artifacts can be "based on AOO" or > "Powered by AOO" or the like, too, without any issue, as long as there's > a correctly worded trademark notice for Apache and AOO alongside it... > > </IANAL> > > Issac > Well, these points are fairly self-evident and stuff that's common: that's good. But where then do we stand now with Amazon downloads? Or for that matter, say other "app marketplace" downloads? Put another way: Whose remit is this? Is this something that Apache does independent of AOO or any other similar project, top level or no? Or is it something that we, AOO(i), non-top level (albeit wishful), do in accordance with Apache, so as to preserve trademark and copyright sanity and keep everyone more or less happy or grumpy? Louis
