Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark > Usage > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > First item, logos: > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > -or- the older web logo > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > - also put > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > in > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > Change > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > -- to -- > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove) > > I will also change the logos area in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > and list all possible logos in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited to", is fine. Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software is here: A good read on some of the issues here: www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > Second item, other artwork: > > All artwork in: > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo > and nothing else): > The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission to use the trademark. I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this to confuse or lure users. > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an > object as you like subject to the following conditions: > > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > Could we just link this back to the trademark page? We already say there that using the logos requires explicit permission. We also give other useful information on how to request, etc. It would be good to keep that info all in one place. > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to > use (either LGPL or PDL) > > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based > > (3) If the object is licensed PDL > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
KG01 - See comments inline. On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark > > Usage > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > First item, logos: > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, > > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > > > -or- the older web logo > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > > > - also put > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > > > in > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > Change > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > -- to -- > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to > remove) > > > > I will also change the logos area in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > and list all possible logos in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > > > > > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed > set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various > graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited > to", is fine. > > Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects > the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. > And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really > whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is > associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the > product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several > trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. > > ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software > is here: A good read on some of the issues here: > www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > > > Second item, other artwork: > > > > All artwork in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise > > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use > and > > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I > think > > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo > > and nothing else): > > > > The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission > to use the trademark. > > I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite > something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, > look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo > for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission > requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. > If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should > probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and > under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. > > I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, > unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind > the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that > lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems > were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow > anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites > that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this > to confuse or lure users. > > > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an > > object as you like subject to the following conditions: > > > > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused an interested party would be. While we can maintain living wiki docs that captures this information, we could also consider creating a logo usage package, include guidance, examples of correct usage, partner guidance and the actual logo assets. Everything could be put into a single-source, versioned, downloadabl
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote: > KG01 - See comments inline. > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark >> > Usage >> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> > >> > First item, logos: >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, >> > which is not the same as the logo on the website: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png >> > >> > -or- the older web logo >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png >> > >> > So, I would like to do a few things: >> > >> > - also put >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png >> > >> > in >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > Change >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > -- to -- >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." >> > >> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to >> remove) >> > >> > I will also change the logos area in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> > >> > and list all possible logos in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ >> > >> > >> >> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed >> set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various >> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited >> to", is fine. >> >> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects >> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. >> And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really >> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is >> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the >> product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several >> trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. >> >> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software >> is here: A good read on some of the issues here: >> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) >> >> > Second item, other artwork: >> > >> > All artwork in: >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> > >> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. >> > >> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise >> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use >> and >> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I >> think >> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo >> > and nothing else): >> > >> >> The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission >> to use the trademark. >> >> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite >> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, >> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo >> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission >> requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. >> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should >> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and >> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. >> >> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, >> unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind >> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that >> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems >> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow >> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites >> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this >> to confuse or lure users. >> >> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an >> > object as you like subject to the following conditions: >> > >> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> > >> >> KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused > an interested party would be. While we can maintain living wiki docs that Actually, we get many requests, sometimes several a
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark > > Usage > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > First item, logos: > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, > > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > > > -or- the older web logo > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > > > - also put > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > > > in > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > Change > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > -- to -- > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to > remove) > > > > I will also change the logos area in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > and list all possible logos in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > > > > > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed > set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various > graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited > to", is fine. > What I'm trying to accomplish is to make it easier for the end user to distinguish between things they need to ask permission to use -- a finite set of actually "trademarked" items I'm assuming (but it could be my understanding of that term is just wrong), and things they don't -- because they fall under some licensing -- LGPL, PDL, or ALv2. So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but not limited to". Why isn't this set limited? > Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects > the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. > And we're not limited to a single symbol. Right, which I why I wanted to point them to just the items in /images/AOO_logos so they know exactly which ones they need to request permission for. The question is really > whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is > associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the > product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several > trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. > > ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software > is here: A good read on some of the issues here: > www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > > > Second item, other artwork: > > > > All artwork in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise > > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use > and > > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I > think > > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo > > and nothing else): > > > > The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission > to use the trademark. > No,it doesn't. I'm sorry -- maybe I was too confusing. It's ONLY the trademarked items that we consider logos. We need to have them continue to request permission for those. > I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite > something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, > look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo > for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission > requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. > We OK -- that's what I'm trying to clarify. I saw the page for "Get It Here". > If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should > probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and > under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. > I'm thinking more in terms of expediting uses of the other artwork elements. Or do you think this isn't necessary given the license statements? > > I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, > unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind > the websites that put up fake versions of
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote: > KG01 - See comments inline. > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk > wrote: > > > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for > Trademark > > > Usage > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > > > First item, logos: > > > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > > Apache > > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" > page, > > > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > > > > > -or- the older web logo > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > > > > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > > > > > - also put > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > > > > > in > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > > > Change > > > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > > Apache > > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > > > -- to -- > > > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > > Apache > > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > > > > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to > > remove) > > > > > > I will also change the logos area in: > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > > > and list all possible logos in: > > > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed > > set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various > > graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited > > to", is fine. > > > > Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects > > the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. > > And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really > > whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is > > associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the > > product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several > > trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. > > > > ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software > > is here: A good read on some of the issues here: > > www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > > > > > Second item, other artwork: > > > > > > All artwork in: > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > > > > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will > advise > > > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to > use > > and > > > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I > > think > > > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual > logo > > > and nothing else): > > > > > > > The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission > > to use the trademark. > > > > I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite > > something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, > > look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo > > for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission > > requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. > > If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should > > probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and > > under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. > > > > I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, > > unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind > > the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that > > lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems > > were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow > > anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites > > that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this > > to confuse or lure users. > > > > > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify > an > > > object as you like subject to the following conditions: > > > > > > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > > > > KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how con
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark >> > Usage >> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> > >> > First item, logos: >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, >> > which is not the same as the logo on the website: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png >> > >> > -or- the older web logo >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png >> > >> > So, I would like to do a few things: >> > >> > - also put >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png >> > >> > in >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > Change >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > -- to -- >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." >> > >> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to >> remove) >> > >> > I will also change the logos area in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> > >> > and list all possible logos in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ >> > >> > >> >> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed >> set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various >> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited >> to", is fine. >> > > What I'm trying to accomplish is to make it easier for the end user to > distinguish between things they need to ask permission to use -- a finite > set of actually "trademarked" items I'm assuming (but it could be my > understanding of that term is just wrong), and things they don't -- because > they fall under some licensing -- LGPL, PDL, or ALv2. > Something can be both trademarked and be under a LPGL, PDL or ALv2 license. The license deals with copyright, which is different from trademark. These are two different species of intellectual property. (Patents would be a third species, but that is not an issue in this case) The license might allow someone to copy the logo, modify it, redistribute, etc., just like an OSS license allows someone to do the same with source code. But if there is also a trademark claimed on the logo, that restricts the things someone can do with the logo. These restrictions are in addition to whatever restrictions are there per the license. For example, take our main project logo. If that were available under a permissive license, someone could copy, modify, redistribute that logo. They might be able to print it out, put it in a frame and hang it on their wall, for example. But they would not be able to put it on a website advertising "Open Office downloads" where the website was actually downloading other software, The trademark protects a symbol associated with the origin of a product. Think for example, of the controlled appellations in the EC, associated with wines and cheese and other food products. They ensure that the use of the term "Parmigiano-Reggiano" is used for only a specific kind of cheese from a specific region of Italy. No one else can legally use that name. It is like a trademark, protecting a name that defines the origin of a product. > So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but > not limited to". > > Why isn't this set limited? > The set is limited by what we actually use in the project to identify the product. But these logos can occur in many different variations and combinations. I don't think we can enumerate them all. And there is risk if we claim to have listed them all, but then miss one, or fail to keep the list up to date. > > >> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects >> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. >> And we're not limited to a single symbol. > > > Right, which I why I wanted to point them to just the items in > /images/AOO_logos > > so they know exactly which ones they need to request permission for. > > The question is really >> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is >> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the >> product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several >> trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that mig
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark > > Usage > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > First item, logos: > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, > > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > > > -or- the older web logo > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > > > - also put > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > > > in > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > Change > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > > > -- to -- > > > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove) > > > > I will also change the logos area in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > and list all possible logos in: > > > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > > > > > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed > set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various > graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited > to", is fine. > > Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects > the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. > And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really > whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is > associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the > product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several > trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. > > ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software > is here: A good read on some of the issues here: > www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > > > Second item, other artwork: > > > > All artwork in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise > > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and > > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think > > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo > > and nothing else): > > > > The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission > to use the trademark. > > I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite > something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, > look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo > for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission > requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. > If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should > probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and > under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. > > I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, > unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind > the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that > lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems > were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow > anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites > that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this > to confuse or lure users. > > > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an > > object as you like subject to the following conditions: > > > > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > > > Could we just link this back to the trademark page? We already say > there that using the logos requires explicit permission. We also give > other useful information on how to request, etc. It would be good to > keep that info all in one place. > > > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to > > use (either LGPL or PDL) > > > > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL > > (http:/
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark >> > Usage >> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> > >> > First item, logos: >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> > Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, >> > which is not the same as the logo on the website: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png >> > >> > -or- the older web logo >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png >> > >> > So, I would like to do a few things: >> > >> > - also put >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png >> > >> > in >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > Change >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> > Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > -- to -- >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> > Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." >> > >> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove) >> > >> > I will also change the logos area in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> > >> > and list all possible logos in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ >> > >> > >> >> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed >> set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various >> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited >> to", is fine. >> >> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects >> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. >> And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really >> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is >> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the >> product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several >> trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. >> >> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software >> is here: A good read on some of the issues here: >> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) >> >> > Second item, other artwork: >> > >> > All artwork in: >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> > >> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. >> > >> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise >> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use >> > and >> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I >> > think >> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo >> > and nothing else): >> > >> >> The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission >> to use the trademark. >> >> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite >> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, >> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo >> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission >> requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. >> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should >> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and >> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. >> >> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, >> unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind >> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that >> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems >> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow >> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites >> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this >> to confuse or lure users. >> >> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an >> > object as you like subject to the following conditions: >> > >> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> > >> >> Could we just link this back to the trademark page? We already say >> there that using the logos requires explicit permission. We also give >> other useful information on how to request, etc. It would be good to >> keep that info
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark Usage http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html First item, logos: "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, which is not the same as the logo on the website: http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png -or- the older web logo http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png So, I would like to do a few things: - also put http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png in http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos Change "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." -- to -- "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." and link the word "logos" to all elements in: http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove) I will also change the logos area in: http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ and list all possible logos in: http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited to", is fine. Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software is here: A good read on some of the issues here: www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) Second item, other artwork: All artwork in: http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ seems to be either LGPL or PDL. I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo and nothing else): The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission to use the trademark. I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this to confuse or lure users. "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an object as you like subject to the following conditions: (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html Could we just link this back to the trademark page? We already say there that using the logos requires explicit permission. We also give other useful information on how to request, etc. It would be good to keep that info all in one place. (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to use (either LGPL or PDL) (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based (3) If the object is licensed PDL (http://www.openoffice.org/licens
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for > Trademark > Usage > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > First item, logos: > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" > page, > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > -or- the older web logo > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > - also put > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > in > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > Change > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > -- to -- > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to > remove) > > I will also change the logos area in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > and list all possible logos in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited to", is fine. Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software is here: A good read on some of the issues here: www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > Second item, other artwork: > > All artwork in: > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will > advise > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to > use and > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I > think > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual > logo > and nothing else): > The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission to use the trademark. I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this to confuse or lure users. > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify > an > object as you like subject to the following conditions: > > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permissi
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: > > On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark > Usage > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html > > First item, logos: > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, > which is not the same as the logo on the website: > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png > > -or- the older web logo > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png > > So, I would like to do a few things: > > - also put > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > in > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > Change > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." > > -- to -- > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names > Apache > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to > remove) > > I will also change the logos area in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > and list all possible logos in: > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ > > > >>> > >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed > >>> set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various > >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited > >>> to", is fine. > >>> > >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects > >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. > >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really > >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is > >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the > >>> product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several > >>> trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. > >>> > >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software > >>> is here: A good read on some of the issues here: > >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) > >>> > Second item, other artwork: > > All artwork in: > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL. > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use > and > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I > think > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo > and nothing else): > > >>> > >>> The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission > >>> to use the trademark. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite > >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, > >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo > >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission > >>> requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. > >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should > >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and > >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. > >>> > >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, > >>> unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind > >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that > >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems > >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow > >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites > >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this > >>> to confuse or lure users. > >>> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an > object as you like subject to the following conditi
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org >> >> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark >> Usage >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> >> First item, logos: >> >> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> >> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" >> page, >> which is not the same as the logo on the website: >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png >> >> -or- the older web logo >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png >> >> So, I would like to do a few things: >> >> - also put >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png >> >> in >> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> >> Change >> >> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> >> -- to -- >> >> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." >> >> and link the word "logos" to all elements in: >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> >> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to >> remove) >> >> I will also change the logos area in: >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> >> and list all possible logos in: >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/ >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed >> >>> set of logos. But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various >> >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited >> >>> to", is fine. >> >>> >> >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file. It protects >> >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files. >> >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol. The question is really >> >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is >> >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the >> >>> product. So from a trademark perspective we could have several >> >>> trademarks, But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing. >> >>> >> >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software >> >>> is here: A good read on some of the issues here: >> >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 ) >> >>> >> Second item, other artwork: >> >> All artwork in: >> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> >> seems to be either LGPL or PDL. >> >> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise >> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to >> use and >> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I >> think >> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual >> logo >> and nothing else): >> >> >>> >> >>> The license only deals with the copyright. It doesn't give permission >> >>> to use the trademark. >> >>> >> >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here. If we want to expedite >> >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example, >> >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. We made a special logo >> >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission >> >>> requests. For everything else, we still require explicit permission. >> >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should >> >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and >> >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used. >> >>> >> >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos, >> >>> unless we've defined such conditions. We should always keep in mind >> >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that >> >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems >> >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups. If we simply allow >> >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites >> >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use t
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> > > >> > >> >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license > >> >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I > >> >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also.. > >> >> > >> >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png > >> >> > >> >> (bottom of back cover :) > >> >> > >> >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image > >> >> as a whole. > >> >> > >> >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project > >> >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way. > >> >> > >> >> What do you think? > >> >> > >> > > >> > The problem is this. You are not asking permission (as far as I can > >> > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of > >> > what Hirano-san did a while back.You are asking permission to use > >> > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be > >> > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution. So even > >> > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would > >> > not be transferred to the 3rd parties. > >> > > >> > Expressed another way: > >> > > >> > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights: > >> > > >> > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical > >> > elements that you have reused. > >> > > >> > 2) Your rights to your original creation. > >> > > >> > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks. > >> > > >> > > >> > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is. > >> > > >> > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1. > >> > You determine the license you want. > >> > > >> > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo. We've done that > >> > before. > >> > > >> > But that is purely from your perspective. What about the perspective > >> > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD? > >> > > >> > #1 and #2 are OK. Open source licenses transfer rights. That is a > >> > core principle. But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so > >> > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download > >> > your artwork. And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that > >> > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with > >> > the "Get it here!" logo. > >> > > >> > Hopefully this makes sense. > >> > > >> > -Rob > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Well given this response...more questions > >> > >> Rob, are you saying, that since some of the "artwork" on the site that > >> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though > >> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing > >> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) > >> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission > >> because of the logo inclusion? > >> > >> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me. > >> > >> > > > > Howdy Kay, Rob > > > > > > Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and > > I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not > > the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single > > publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps. > > > > Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND > > license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed. > > > > OK. I didn't notice the significance of the ND. That might work. > But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the > artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc. > Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image as a whole." Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the morning. Thanks, //drew > > Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell > > it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything, > > I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact > > should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no > > right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do > > so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of > > the trademarks with the project directly. > > > > Least that is how I see it. > > > > Thanks for your feedback, > > > > //drew > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
On 06/14/2012 01:53 PM, drew wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also.. http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png (bottom of back cover :) so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image as a whole. I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way. What do you think? The problem is this. You are not asking permission (as far as I can tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of what Hirano-san did a while back.You are asking permission to use the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution. So even if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would not be transferred to the 3rd parties. Expressed another way: Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights: 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical elements that you have reused. 2) Your rights to your original creation. 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks. #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is. #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1. You determine the license you want. #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo. We've done that before. But that is purely from your perspective. What about the perspective of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD? #1 and #2 are OK. Open source licenses transfer rights. That is a core principle. But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download your artwork. And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with the "Get it here!" logo. Hopefully this makes sense. -Rob Well given this response...more questions Rob, are you saying, that since some of the "artwork" on the site that contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission because of the logo inclusion? This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me. Howdy Kay, Rob Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps. Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed. OK. I didn't notice the significance of the ND. That might work. But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc. Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image as a whole." Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the morning. Thanks, //drew Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything, I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of the trademarks with the project directly. Least that is how I see it. Thanks for your feedback, //drew Thanks to both of you for all this enlightening information, esp the clause about trademarks in ALv2. I'll need to take a closer look at the LGPL etc to see how this is covered there. I think I have a much better idea of what is actually going on now, and will just drop this thread. It would be nice to provide our users with a bit more user-friendly information so I will think about all this and visit in a few days. -- MzK "There's no crying in baseball!" -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
Hi, I wanted to address the concern on this thread about making it easier for the user to also locate images. What would you think about a central page listing the links for all images? I was thinking that it should be someplace easy for the user to find, not buried too deeply - such as the Download page under the Resource secondary heading. This might be the quickest way for a user to find images, possibly with a descriptive link such as, 'Images you can use'. Another place might be the Support tab - leading from all of the options on the openoffice.org page however, just about everyone ends up on the download page. My first thoughts were about having several folders, and subfolders that could move forward with the project. Placing the actual images and informational pages, such as this rough beginning: Images>Guidelines >When to seek approval >FAQ >Logos >Current - i.e. official current version logo images with alt keywords for >usability/SEO in link -with guidelines if different or referral to applicable >guidelines in the Guideline folder >Future Contests >Rules(size,format,descriptive file name, etc) >AOO 3.4 entries >Archive >Icons >Current >Future Contests >Archive section or folders for each year's contest >Presentations >Manuals >Impress/Video presentations that anyone can use (or add terms of use either on >a page or separate folder) >Contest>any breakdown method such as by year or version release >Miscellaneous >Photo >Vector Art Once a contest is complete, the winning image/s move to the CURRENT folder, and the old replaced images move to the Archives. On the other hand I think even a list of links on one collective page with the same categories as headings and subheadings would work just as well. The link to this page could be on the Download page, under Marketing, a wiki, or anywhere else that one might want to link a reference to the images available - and nothing would necessarily have to move to a new URL location. If it is a page of links, the current images could stay wherever you wanted them, just update this one page should the images move to a new URL. Thoughts? Nancy Nancy Web Design Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com. Video courses on SEO, CMS, Design and Software Courses From: Rob Weir To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote: > KG01 - See comments inline. > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark >> > Usage >> > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html >> > >> > First item, logos: >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page, >> > which is not the same as the logo on the website: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png >> > >> > -or- the older web logo >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png >> > >> > So, I would like to do a few things: >> > >> > - also put >> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png >> > >> > in >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > Change >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo." >> > >> > -- to -- >> > >> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names >> Apache >> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos." >> > >> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos >> > >> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to >> remove) >> > >> > I will also change the logos area in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/ >> > >> > and list all possible logos in: >> > >> > http://www.openoffice.org/m
