Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hello Florian, Le Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:52:55 +0200, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > Hi Charles, > > Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-03-23 18.04: > > > Voilà. SC members, feel free to vote again, or shout (but for the > > very last time). > > thanks a lot for managing this, and for your patience. +1 to the > policy. > > Just one small thing: Legally, marks do currently *not* belong to > TDF, as TDF does not exist. They legally belong to OOoDeV, but I > would waive the necessity to mention that until either OOoDeV has > renamed itself (the annual meeting will decide on that in April), or > TDF legally exists. OK, but then the TM policy is adopted anyway... :) > > Another mark: Maybe we should add a version and/or a date to the TM > policy, so we know which version people refer to. Like "TM policy as > of 2011-03-29" there's the date on the wiki that's automatically there, with the revision, etc. > > And then a note: Google has locked our two marks for use in > advertising, so I hope this will limit the amount of fraudulent > sites. Anyone seeking permission to use these marks in advertising > can also contact the legal@ alias and we can decide on exceptions. I > want things to be as easy as possible. +1, thanks for handling this! TM Policy ADOPTED! Best, Charles. > > Florian > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi Charles, Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-03-23 18.04: Voilà. SC members, feel free to vote again, or shout (but for the very last time). thanks a lot for managing this, and for your patience. +1 to the policy. Just one small thing: Legally, marks do currently *not* belong to TDF, as TDF does not exist. They legally belong to OOoDeV, but I would waive the necessity to mention that until either OOoDeV has renamed itself (the annual meeting will decide on that in April), or TDF legally exists. Another mark: Maybe we should add a version and/or a date to the TM policy, so we know which version people refer to. Like "TM policy as of 2011-03-29" And then a note: Google has locked our two marks for use in advertising, so I hope this will limit the amount of fraudulent sites. Anyone seeking permission to use these marks in advertising can also contact the legal@ alias and we can decide on exceptions. I want things to be as easy as possible. 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi, Original-Nachricht > Von: "Charles-H. Schulz" > > So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text > according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like > to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon > Foundation time. +1 André -- 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 ...
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text > according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like > to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon > Foundation time. > Looks perfect to me, thanks a lot - +1! -- 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi all, On 27/03/2011 16:58, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello, [...]So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon Foundation time. +1 and thanks Charles for your work on this Kind regards Sophie -- 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 ...
Le Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:13:59 +0200, Italo Vignoli a écrit : > On 3/28/11 6:06 PM, Caolan McNamara wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 15:58 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > >> So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the > >> text according to some of your corrections above (not all of > >> them). I'd like to call for a vote (the final one) starting now > >> until Tuesday at noon Foundation time. > > > > Let put this one to bed finally, +1. > > +1 as well, Italo > ah I think it needs some more of... Just kidding. +1, of course. -- 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 ...
On 3/28/11 6:06 PM, Caolan McNamara wrote: On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 15:58 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon Foundation time. Let put this one to bed finally, +1. +1 as well, Italo -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation phone +39.348.5653829 - VoIP +39.02.320621813 email it...@libreoffice.it - skype italovignoli gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com -- 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 ...
On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 15:58 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text > according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like > to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon > Foundation time. Let put this one to bed finally, +1. C. -- 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 ...
On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 15:58 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text > according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like > to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon > Foundation time. Perfect ! :-) not that I have a vote, but I'm casting my non-vote for it :-) Thanks Charles ! 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 ...
Hi Charles, On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 18:04 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > I have thus taken Michael's input and adapted it to our existing > proposal. In substance, the TM policy itself *hasn't changed* I simply > added one more link in the text to our logo guideline. Looks good; we still talk exclusively about Trademarks, where I would really prefer 'Marks' to be used everywhere (as it was at the beginning). IMHO that separation was introduced to try to create a new category for logos, and I don't believe we want that. The exemplary pointer right in the middle of the hard rules is odd. Our guidelines are extremely practical ;-) so I would say: - (see our simplified logo policy for more practical information) + (see our simplified logo policy for some examples) I would also remove the blurb at the beginning. "While this document covers the topics related to Trademark Policy, you may find more practical information about our logos and how to use them here." as part of that too; no need for two links. Otherwise, with that included, I'm for approving this this as the best I can persuade you to iterate to as of now without advice to back me up, IANAL etc. ;-) 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] Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hello Bernhard, Le Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:49:04 +0100 (CET), "Bernhard Dippold" a écrit : > Hi Charles, all > > while I'm fine with the TM policy, I think there should be one more > case mentioned in the logo policy: > > Charles M. Schultz wrote > > > Hi there, > > > > that's hopefully the last time we do this. > > When you keep your eye on the Trademark policy, voting should be > possible... > > > [...] > > > > Our logo guideline got a new paragraph at its beginning explaining > > clearly the use of the TDF mention. > > The Logo Policy doesn't cover the use case that TDF wants to present > the logo with subline on an external resource - as officially > supported reference to LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. > > Do you want to include such use: > http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/libreoffice/ > in the policy? > > Or is it already covered and I didn't see it? It is implicitly covered :-) Best, Charles. > > Best regards > > Bernhard > > > > -- 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] Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi Charles, all while I'm fine with the TM policy, I think there should be one more case mentioned in the logo policy: Charles M. Schultz wrote > Hi there, > > that's hopefully the last time we do this. When you keep your eye on the Trademark policy, voting should be possible... > [...] > > Our logo guideline got a new paragraph at its beginning explaining > clearly the use of the TDF mention. The Logo Policy doesn't cover the use case that TDF wants to present the logo with subline on an external resource - as officially supported reference to LibreOffice and The Document Foundation. Do you want to include such use: http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/libreoffice/ in the policy? Or is it already covered and I didn't see it? Best regards Bernhard -- 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 there, that's hopefully the last time we do this. After some discussion here and there it became clear that Mike's latest proposal (insert some text and keep the existing policies) was the easiest and the best one. I have thus taken Michael's input and adapted it to our existing proposal. In substance, the TM policy itself *hasn't changed* I simply added one more link in the text to our logo guideline. Our logo guideline got a new paragraph at its beginning explaining clearly the use of the TDF mention. See here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy#Non_Permitted_Use and the logo policy: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy Voilà. SC members, feel free to vote again, or shout (but for the very last time). 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi guys,
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:56 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> > general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark
> > need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM
> > already cover its usage?
>
> It is indeed a bit confusing. In the beginning, we talk about LibO and
> TDF trademarks, but then we have this paragraph: "TDF Trademarks should
> be used in their exact form, neither abbreviated nor combined with any
Right :-)
> I think Michael raised these concerns already and wanted to legally
> check it. Michael, any results?
Nope; and I couldn't share any such advice as you know :-) But I think
the points I raised were obvious enough even to an IANAL type such as
myself.
> Sorry for jumping in so late...
Ditto, I've been buried.
Personally - I would be well up for getting the trademark policy out in
its earlier form before we started to try to get the logo distinction
included.
IMHO - we have everything we want to stop crazies pretending to be us
by clearly forbidding:
"2. In any way that indicates a greater degree of association
between you and TDF than actually exists".
I would suggest that we remove the in-text reference to the Logo page;
and yet have a clear statement on the separate Logo page, and perhaps
add a FAQ type link at the bottom ("does using a TDF logo indicate an
association with the project?") that says something like:
"Using a Logo with 'The Document Foundation' sub-line without being
officially recognised as part of TDF idicates a degree of association
that is closer than actually exists, and is therefore in breach of our
trademark guidelines". "Please use the non-TDF mark in its place in its
place etc. etc. ... "
That is a helpful clarification I think.
I'd like to recommend keeping the other bits until we have a foundation
and employed counsel that can advise us on this; but I would also like
to further advise that legal advice is deadly expensive, and usually
extremely vague - handing you the same risks back again; and we have
(perhaps) better things to spend our money on ;-)
My feeling is also that we should fix the over-concern and distinction
of "trademarks" from other marks, and restore the original "Marks"
language that was a result of better advice.
So - in short with a few cleans and I'm happy :-)
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 ...
Hi Charles, Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-03-11 14.34: there's no more formal running vote. We're discussing on what to do with respect to the TDF trademark itself and the TDF subline. My last post was asking the following question: If we agree on the TM policy in I agree, and thanks a lot for drafting and pushing it forward! Just one remark: Legally, we should maybe mention "Referred to 'TDF' in this document", rather than "short 'TDF'", as the latter one might create the impression "TDF" is our trademark as well, which it isn't. I also would change "widespread use of TDF trademarks" to "widespread use of our trademarks", as the former one might raise the impression people should use the TDF subline as much as possible, which they shouldn't. This term, "TDF trademarks", occurs more often, and probably all should be replaced by "our trademarks", to make it clear and avoid confusion. We should also add a separate paragraph "Contact", where we sum up the contact possibilities. In addition to the e-mail address, we should also add a fax number. Feel free to use mine, which is currently also registered with the trademark office, as I'm the legal representant of OOoDeV: +49 8341 99660889 (we will this replace then later on with the official TDF fax number) The sentence "Trademarks are not just TDF logos but also the names of its various products and projects, as well as the names documentfoundation.org and libreoffice.org among others (also called word marks), and are collectively referred to as “TDF Trademarks”." is wrong. The only thing generally registered as trademark or being filed is "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation", solely as word mark. No logos, no URLs and the like. These can, however, be covered by copyright or competition law, and we should add a sentence. Sorry for being so touchy here, but in some countries claiming TMs you don't have is even a crime. Legally, we should also avoid saying at the moment that the trademarks belong to TDF, as legally, they belong to OOoDeV. However, if this policy will be put in place only as soon as the foundation legally exists, leave it in the draft. In that case, don't worry about my fax number, rather wait until we have our own office or contact point. :-) general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM already cover its usage? It is indeed a bit confusing. In the beginning, we talk about LibO and TDF trademarks, but then we have this paragraph: "TDF Trademarks should be used in their exact form, neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words. TDF has a set of acceptable logos for general use. If you are not sure where they are please inquire on our lists. Only the logos that bear the exact mention of the software name with the mention “The Document Foundation” are reserved for the sole and official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash screens from software builds compiled by the Document Foundation or DVD labels officially stemming from the Document Foundation. You may not use this set of logos but only the logos bearing the software name without the Document Foundation's mention." I think Michael raised these concerns already and wanted to legally check it. Michael, any results? Sorry for jumping in so late... although this mail is rather long, I think the points addressed are just minor and do not touch the general intention of the TM policy. :) 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi, Le Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:18:31 +0100, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > Hi, > > sorry for stepping in so late on this, the last days have been a bit > busy with off-TDF things. :-) > > I've lost plot a bit: Is there a formal vote running now, or do we > need to clarify the situation with regards to the TDF tagline? > there's no more formal running vote. We're discussing on what to do with respect to the TDF trademark itself and the TDF subline. My last post was asking the following question: If we agree on the TM policy in general (and I think we do) does the TDF subline and the TDF trademark need a specific, more restrictive trademark policy OR does the TM already cover its usage? 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi, sorry for stepping in so late on this, the last days have been a bit busy with off-TDF things. :-) I've lost plot a bit: Is there a formal vote running now, or do we need to clarify the situation with regards to the TDF tagline? 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...
Hi, I turned this discussion inside out in my mind, and I think that we can perhaps work it out if we ask a different question. We all agree on the TM policy itself (we do, I think). There is but one detail concerning the use of the TDF subline in a logo that is understood as somewhat different (or not). The reason we have this discussion is that we, or at least a majority of us believe that TDF itself on a logo should not be used that easily. So the question is: does the TM policy in abstracto give enough protection to all of our trademarks, logos etc? If not, can we insert some additional languages? Hope this helps, Charles. 2011/3/8 Thorsten Behrens > 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 *** > > -- 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 ...
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 ***
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 ...
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 ***
[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 ***
