[steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hello, I'm a volunteer about to add some packaging scripts for LibreOffice in pkgsrc [1], and as such, I asked on the IRC developer's channel if there was a problem if I used The Document Foundation as a vendor string for the resulting packages. This is an extract of the exchanges I had on this channel: 11:30 ftigeot is there a policy on branding / the --with-vendor option ? 11:33 ftigeot would there be a problem if I use The Document Foundation in my packages ? 11:39 * ftigeot has just found http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy 11:40 ftigeot I will use The Document Foundation as vendor string 11:40 @mmeeks ftigeot: ho hum; if you are not the document foundation - don't do that. 11:40 @mmeeks ftigeot: I think that is the request of the branding guidelines. 11:40 @mmeeks ftigeot: TDF is only for TDF produced builds; LibreOffice is for everyone. 11:46 ftigeot mmeeks: the webpage says You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 11:46 ftigeot 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. 11:47 ftigeot with a definition of substantially unmodified which says the way I intend to package it is basically okay This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. Substantially unmodified means built from the source code provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into other languages, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the bundling of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions). The packaging scripts I am creating use the unmodified source code of LibreOffice and only change the default configuration options. According to the previously mentionned web page, the usage of The Document Foundation trademark is permitted in this case. According to Michael Meeks, it was not the intent of the Foundation to allow the usage of its brand in that case. Could this point be clarified ? If the usage of The Document Foundation trademark is not permitted for creating third-party packages, the information on the TradeMark_Policy webpage are contradictory. Thanks in advance for your answers [1] pkgsrc - http://www.pkgsrc.org/ - is a framework for building and packaging third-party software. It was originally created for NetBSD but is now supported on many systems, including Linux, MacOS X and Microsoft Windows (Interix) -- Francois Tigeot -- 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] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hi, just some comments, far from final decision ;) Von: Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. Please note the wording refer to the LibreOffice software. So this chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of the software. There is another paragraph in the policy: Non Permitted Use You may not use the marks in the following ways: 1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the origin of its software, or the software's license; So in your case, there might be confusion what the origin of the sofware is - you are the vendor, but you are not TDF. Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the LibreOffice trademark, but it is questionable to use The Document Foundation trademark. If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our project framework. So the way the vendors act are very different and this should be reflected in the vendor string. regards, André -- 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] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hi Andre, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:34:50PM +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: Von: Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: [...] 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. Please note the wording refer to the LibreOffice software. So this chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of the software. Hmm. This is a bit unclear. You mean the vendor would only be the packager, not The Document Foundation ? There is another paragraph in the policy: Non Permitted Use You may not use the marks in the following ways: 1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the origin of its software, or the software's license; So in your case, there might be confusion what the origin of the sofware is - you are the vendor, but you are not TDF. I'm starting to realize the vendor term should be defined: I'm only writing packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished binary packages. The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is, without any modification. There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's all. Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the LibreOffice trademark, but it is questionable to use The Document Foundation trademark. Should I only use LibreOffice ? The wording on the about box would give this : This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates. Which will be a bit weird... If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our project framework. Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm What I've been doing so far is: - make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get them - add checksums for these files - define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt, etc...) - define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice - specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries, etc...) - tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions available on the developers web page. So the way the vendors act are very different and this should be reflected in the vendor string. What is a vendor and what is very different here ? This is sounding a bit lame, but nowhere did I see a clarification of the name vendor, and what it should do or not. Kind Regards, -- Francois Tigeot -- 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
