Re: [steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy
Thank you Christoph! And now again, and hopefully for the last time, SC members only, please cast your vote in the form of +1 or -1 for the approval of the Trademark Policy. This ballot shall close tomorrow at 2 pm CET (Berlin/Paris). Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] confcall this week needed?
Hi, is a confcall this week needed? I am waiting for the lawyer feedback regarding the foundation, and from my side, the next call is not needed before we have details on this. So, if anyone has a hot topic we need to discuss on the phone, let me know, otherwise, we'll have a call next week. Florian -- Florian Effenberger Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi Charles, On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:42 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > I inserted > inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified > version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy. Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can use the LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" seems to accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for: * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice" * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice" As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too. Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like there are a lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for: * restricting spokespeople to a chosen set * ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known * defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be LibreOffice Then there are two sets of marks: * LibreOffice * The Document Foundation And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for these two marks. Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - which incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a difference. Which is correct ? > It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two. > You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but > that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image > marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values. Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want different rules to a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really saying it is ok for someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document Foundation" - if they use a different font/set of colors / style of writing ? :-) I hope not. Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we should do the same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did) - I see you replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't think this makes for a clear, crisp policy. > Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one > more period of 24 hours now. My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than clearer the more that the pages are edited :-) The original TM policy, as reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight. I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider actually what it is we want to achieve with this separation of different logos / marks; it is -highly- unclear to me. Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and minimally - in tight language that can be understood by everyone. That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not approve the policy in its current form; sorry. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hello Michael, Le Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:57:10 +, Michael Meeks a écrit : > Hi Charles, > > On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:42 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > I inserted > > inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially > > unmodified version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the > > Trademark Policy. > > Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can > use the LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" > seems to accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for: > > * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice" > * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice" > > As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for > "substantially unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even > defending the LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its > use ? the TM policy says it can only be used for "Substantially > unmodified" software too. > > Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like > there are a lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for: > > * restricting spokespeople to a chosen set > * ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known > * defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be > LibreOffice > > Then there are two sets of marks: > > * LibreOffice > * The Document Foundation > > And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different > policy for these two marks. > > Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - > which incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no > difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a > difference. > > Which is correct ? > > > It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the > > two. You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but > > that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, > > image marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different > > values. > > Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want > different rules to a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really > saying it is ok for someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document > Foundation" - if they use a different font/set of colors / style of > writing ? :-) I hope not. > > Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we > should do the same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did) > - I see you replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't > think this makes for a clear, crisp policy. > > > Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one > > more period of 24 hours now. > > My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than > clearer the more that the pages are edited :-) The original TM > policy, as reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not > watertight. > > I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider > actually what it is we want to achieve with this separation of > different logos / marks; it is -highly- unclear to me. > > Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and > minimally - in tight language that can be understood by everyone. > > That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not > approve the policy in its current form; sorry. > > HTH, > > Michael. > Normally I woud probably start to rant but you're outlining something important here :-) I think if you're confused then other people are confused. I think that the TM policy is trying to address one global situation while keeping one specific exception (the TDF outline) as a somewhat more restrictive usage. The TM policy should be kept as is, probably, but we should come up with one specific exception for TDF, included right inside the text. Which means we need to draft one more paragraph into it. What do you (and the others) think -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi Michael, Charles, all, please let me describe how I think it is meant - probably we need to rephrase the Logo policy (but not the Trademark Policy). As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO) aside for the moment. It can be fine-tuned later on. If you want the Logo Policy to become a relevant part, then you should consider to add a link (and/or a one-line description) to the Policies paragraph (merchandise, services). At the moment this paragraph doesn't differ between the different logos. Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph: At the moment it reads: You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites. Adding "for that purpose" restricts the use of the "internal" logo: You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics for that purpose from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites. If you are interested in my perception of the Logo Policy, please read on - even if the topic is tightly connected, it is a different one... Michael Meeks schrieb: Hi Charles, On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:42 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: I inserted inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy. This is a direct reference to the Trademark Policy - I don't know if it is necessary to repeat it here. The main point for the product is: When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified". Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can use the LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" seems to accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for: * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice" * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice" It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above: "Individual community members and other people referring to our product and the community should use the logo without the subline." As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too. That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here. The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it contains the "substantially unmodified binaries". But in the description of this product, references to the community, merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF. Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like there are a lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for: * restricting spokespeople to a chosen set * ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known * defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be LibreOffice You're right: These are parts of the Trademark Policy, but for the first point misinterpretation should be reduced by appliance of the Logo Policy. Then there are two sets of marks: * LibreOffice * The Document Foundation Right. And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for these two marks. No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the wordmarks. Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - which incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a difference. Which is correct ? The Trademark Guidelines. There is no way to use the word "LibreOffice" in a way that is not in agreement with the Trademark Policy. But the logo to be used for this reference exists in two different versions. One for TDF and community, one for everybody else. It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two. You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values. +1 Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want different rules to a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really saying it is ok for someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document Foundation" - if they use a differe
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Bernhard Dippold wrote: > As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be > reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO) > aside for the moment. > Hi Bernhard, all, well maybe - but maybe we should beforehand try to reach mutual agreement on what we want to achieve (unless we want to go back & change the trademark policy, possibly) - > Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph: > Hm, I don't think that really clears things up enough? > When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called > LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at > least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the > logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified". > Yes, and > > * Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice" > > * Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice" > > It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above: > "Individual community members and other people referring to our > product and the community should use the logo without the subline." > > > > As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially > >unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the > >LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy > >says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too. > > That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here. > > The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it > contains the "substantially unmodified binaries". > > But in the description of this product, references to the community, > merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF > subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF. > And this is not clearly separated at all, I'm afraid. The catch is that there's a very fuzzy border between a splash screen (being permitted to display TDF), and a screenshot on a box (*not* being permitted to display TDF, if handed out by a mere community member, if I interpret you right?) > No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they > aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the > wordmarks. > I think that was Michael's issue - with the link to the logo guidelines, they actually affect each other, legally. ;) So if you're ok that if in doubt, the Trademark rules are the authoritative ones (i.e. I don't want to revisit them, should we later discover they contradict the intended logo guidelines), then I'd agree with your proposal to remove the link to the logo guidelines and approve the trademark rules as-is. Cheers, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
