Wow - you guys here are *really* great. The truth is the best community play is to use project specific domains under PPMC control. I didn't expect you to just shift it over like this and wasn't asking for it. However, it is the best result.
This project is very lucky to have a PPMC of this calibre. Ross On 20 July 2012 23:40, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ross, > > I was looking for examples but I could not find any Apache "Foo" project > where a project member or 3th party runs a website under the domain name > foo.com or foo.de/fr/ru. > So I moved the website to webbase-design.de now. openmeetings.de just > contains a redirect/info page. > We might change that to a valid http-error 301 "moved permanently" to > ensure search engines find our new website. > > Attribution of the website webbase-design.de should go clearly to the > Apache Project and the "impressum" does indicate who has ownership of the > trademark "OpenMeetings": http://www.webbase-design.de/impressum/ > > Sebastian > > 2012/7/20 Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> > >> Great, Ross, thanks for your clarifications. >> >> -- >> With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями, >> Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов, >> http://dataved.ru/ >> +7 916 562 8095 >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 19 July 2012 13:18, Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Ross, >> >> it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not >> >> yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would >> >> be simpler to understand >> > >> > Absolutely. However the specifics right now are so varied that it is >> > clear the maintainer of the openmeetings.de site has not read the >> > trademark policy. For example: >> > >> > "On websites, hyperlinks to the relevant project homepage and to the >> > ASF should be added" >> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution >> > >> > I've not conducted a review of the openmeetings.de site, or of any >> > other open meetings related site. My goal is not to pick on specific >> > items on a single page - that would be unfair. My goal is only to >> > raise awareness of the trademark policy so that people can, I hope, >> > take appropriate action in their own time. >> > >> >> I have investigated the following >> >> http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22 >> >> >> >> It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are >> >> not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases >> >> are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise. >> > >> > Generally speaking if the PPMC is satisfied with any specific use of >> > their marks then the ASF will be. However, the PPMC needs to know what >> > is acceptable and what is not. Hence the PPMC members need to know >> > what the policy is. hence this thread. The issue with trademarks is >> > that if we don't protect them then they are no longer valid. This >> > could be damaging to the whole community. >> > >> > I'm happy to give you my opinion on each case, but I'm speaking only >> > as an ASF mentor. I am not a member of the trademarks committee. >> > >> >> * We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our >> >> product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build >> >> a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly >> >> speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not >> >> mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though). >> > >> > Strictly speaking it is Apache Openmeetings (incubating) - see >> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html >> > >> > However, use in mailing lists etc. is not really the concern here, >> > it's in press, websites etc. Furthermore, it's only really necessary >> > on first use, just as the Apache part can be dropped after first use. >> > >> >> * We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of >> >> Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same. >> >> If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis. >> > >> > See above - OpenOffice does, as far as I am aware conform to this policy. >> > >> >> * The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch >> >> for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open >> >> proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was >> >> to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's >> >> sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of >> >> sponsorship. >> > >> > This is perfectly OK as long as the activity is outside of the ASF. >> > That is it's not the ASF offering these incentives it is some third >> > party who conforms to the trademark policy in their engagements. The >> > ASF does not, and never will, pay for software development. Third >> > parties are free to pay for anything they want. >> > >> >> Consider the quote, >> >> Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software >> >> Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be >> >> used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of >> >> any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind. >> >> >> >> This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors >> >> Apache and some particular Apache products. >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/ >> > >> > Yes, ASF and many organisations sponsor the ASF but they are not >> > allowed any special rights over our marks as a result. They do not >> > sponsor our projects, they sponsor the foundation so it can provide >> > services for *all* our projects not any specific project. Using our >> > marks in factual statements is always allowed (no policy we write can >> > change that), so MS can say they sponsor the foundation (fact) but >> > they cannot say they sponsor Apache Foo since we don't accept >> > targetted donations for projects. >> > >> >> Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers, >> >> I cannot refer to the Apache project. >> > >> > You are raising money for your *developers*. That is fine. You are not >> > raising money for the *project*. >> > >> > So you can say "I will pay developers to work on Apache Foo" but you >> > can't say "I sponsor Apache Foo". >> > >> >> My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here. >> > >> > That would be for trademarks@ to do if necessary. >> > >> > Ross >> > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.openmeetings.de > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected] -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
