[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hi Christian, Thanks for this long and balanced post. Far less heated than I (or other hot people of the community) can produce. I hope ZC will take time to answer your legitimate questions... I suppose you'll await some progress on the negotiation before joining us in ZEA... BTW, do you have the feeling ZEA was trying to steal anything, have you heard of others that would think we tried to ? At least I agree ZEA should have communicated with ZC far earlier. Christian Scholz wrote: Hi! Andrew Milton wrote: You took someone else's work and claimed it as your own. This is the worst crime you can commit in the Open Source world. I think it's not really a discussion about Open Source here as it should make no difference to the Zope community whether ZC or ZEA is holding the TM. Both don't represent it and both possibly could do harm to it if they just wanted to (which they don't want as I see it). Thanks mainly for this paragraph... which ZEA itself would agree with, at least if I understand their(our) position correctly. snip -- Godefroid Chapelle (aka __gotcha) http://bubblenet.be ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hi! Thanks for this long and balanced post. Far less heated than I (or other hot people of the community) can produce. I hope ZC will take time to answer your legitimate questions... I'd also prefer some answers by some independant people regarding legal topics (as long as it can be told based on the facts). I suppose you'll await some progress on the negotiation before joining us in ZEA... Well, it was explained to me what ZEA is at EP and I was just listening for now ;-) The same is true for the ZF. BTW, do you have the feeling ZEA was trying to steal anything, have you heard of others that would think we tried to ? Well, I cannot look into the heads of people but in general I trust people so when ZEA says they just wanted to protect it, I believe it as I believe that ZC has no evil plans with the TM. I think trying to steal it wouldn't be a good idea anyway and I think that the people at ZEA know this as the publicity of this would be against them (as we see now). Moreover I know some people at ZEA and they seem to be nice guys anyway and not business sharks. Actually it feels a bit like a competition issue between ZC and ZEA and it would be nice if this would be sorted out between them (internally please) as the market is big enough (especially if one party is in the US and the other one in Europe). So about this whole topic actually there are two points: 1. How the issue was handled. IMHO not good on both sides. 2. What the plans with the TM are and what they mean to the Zope community. At least I agree ZEA should have communicated with ZC far earlier. Good :-) -- christian ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hi! Andrew Milton wrote: You took someone else's work and claimed it as your own. This is the worst crime you can commit in the Open Source world. I think it's not really a discussion about Open Source here as it should make no difference to the Zope community whether ZC or ZEA is holding the TM. Both don't represent it and both possibly could do harm to it if they just wanted to (which they don't want as I see it). I think it's more a story about a company which some time ago made their software open source. The result of that was a big win for the Zope project as it attracted a lot of developers and, as a result, created a lot of additional projects like Silva, Plone, CPS etc. So now we have quite a big community advocating the use of Zope and now also doing the main development of the software itself (in form of Zope3). I am part of that community and I am proud of that :-) So from Zope having it's roots in that company these problems arise IMHO. So having said that I am a bit disappointed by the recent discussions here as it's maybe the sign of some unresolved problems between certain important players in the Zope world. Some points: - How the thread was started by ZC was IMHO not really good style. For me it sounded like very hard words and threatening with not doing the foundation did not sound too good and not really a good thing for the community. I also still don't understand what the foundation has to do with the actual TM discussion - wasn't it just the logo about which was being discussed? So what would have happened in the case if not ZEA did register it but any evil guy? To hold the creation of the Foundation should not have been the answer in any case! - if ZEA has registered the TM without telling ZC this is of course not ok. I understand if you don't discuss it loudly so that other parties hurry to register it but it could have been solved easily back then with a silent negotiation between the two parties. (too bad ZC did not simply register everything themselves so we would have one discussion less) - in general: Bashing each other will not help Zope and not the community. And a damaged community cannot help ZC or ZEA or any other player in the Zope world. So it should be in everyones interest to keep things going in a good mood. So that much about the form now more about my worries about the TM itself. Legally of course ZC is the right owner of the TMs as they created Zope. But OTOH it would feel more right if the TM would be transferred to the Zope Foundation. ZC once opensourced their project and the main work in terms of coding and marketing seems to be done by the community now and less and less by ZC (at least it seems to me that way). And for me Zope also feels like an open source project through and through and not something belonging to some single company. From what I see that's also the way most of the rest of the world thinks about it, especially in Europe. Thus for me it would just feel better if also the TM would be given to the community in form of the foundation (as the community is no real legal person the foundation might be the next possible thing). I also read about the irrevocable license given to the Zope Foundation and it might make no difference legally for the TM whether ZC or the ZF owns it. But as said before, I am no legal expert and thus I don't know about all the impacts and thus I am worried. So also because of this it would feel better for me if the TM would be owned by the ZF as there are just more checksbalances between their members than there will be with a single player. And hopefully I would at least trust one of them ;-) But maybe somebody can answer me some questions about it anyway: 1. What does the license mean. Does it mean that ZF will also have the right to decide who is allowed what to do with the TM, and even restrict ZC? 2. If ZC might get evil (I don't assume that, btw :-): What might happen with sites like zopelabs or any other site/institution having Zope in it's name. Can they tell them to remove that name? 3. What will happen in this worst case if ZC (or more exactly evil ZC) will suddenly start doing a Java CMS under the name Zope? Can the ZF prevent this? So basically it's not quite clear to me if the license just means that ZF is allowed to use the name or if they also can really protect it. There might always be the possibility to rename the whole project but why should I advocate Zope now if this investment might be lost someday? So because of this discussion I am a bit worried. It might be called irrational fears but I might not be the only one and as many in the community are not fluent in legal things this stuff should be thought about very carefully in order to keep the environment intact as this is what Zope makes alive. (OTOH the community seems not really taking part in that discussion so maybe it's just me who is a bit worried ;-) Finally I would
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
(Sorry about the lateness of this post, a combination of interesting SMTP blocks + Zope mailing list policies made this message not come through the first time around, which was the 20th of July. I discovered this today while browsing the archives.) On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:07:25 +0200, Rob Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As an aside, the ZEA has also registered the Plone logo as a trademark. It is not our business, but came as a surprise to us, that the Plone Foundation is not the owner of the Plone trademark. This is wrong. In the early days of the Foundation, we had no proper legal representation and asked ZEA to represent us while setting up the legal entity for the Foundation. Plone Foundation therefore asked ZEA to assist us with their trademark experts to register the Plone trademark worldwide. This is perfectly clear from the publicly available Plone Foundation board meeting minutes. They did the work on our behalf, and most excellently executed the worldwide registration of the mark. The trademarks were transferred fully to the Plone Foundation as agreed. As a result, Plone Foundation owns the worldwide trademark for Plone. -- Alexander Limi Vice President Plone Foundation ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
--On 26. Juli 2005 22:40:18 +0200 Alexander Limi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They did the work on our behalf, and most excellently executed the worldwide registration of the mark. The trademarks were transferred fully to the Plone Foundation as agreed. So any idea why the WIPO database tell us a different story? -aj pgpwQ0eQtakmt.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
I would like to inform that ZEA is in the process to transfer the trademark to Zope Corporation. A number of actions will be taken including the preparation of the list of expenses to secure the trademark, and meetings with our trademark expert to work on the administrative details. We would like to emphasize that no action taken by Zope Europe Association are illegal from a European perspective. As said earlier, our action was aimed at securing the mark stopping third party registrations. Best regards,Xavier HeymansCEO, Zope Europe AssociationOn 21-juil.-05, at 14:35, Hadar Pedhazur wrote:"George Donnelly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:dbmpjp$kl8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... ZC says: the marks were stolenZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. I am amazed at how people pick and choose what to read andrepeat, and what to ignore. I will mix in a few quotes froma few posts responding to my note yesterday to highlightthis problem.After this post, unless someone makes a profound newstatement, I will remain silent, as many of you haverequested, and complete the trademark challenge processthrough the official channels that have already begun.George, others have already replied to this, but Rob haswritten about this as well before, so I'm surprised thatthis is still a question. A defensive registration of _our_trademark should have been _explicitly_ called to ourattention. In fact, any reasonable company would havealerted us to any specific danger, and asked us if _we_intended to register our trademarks in the appropriatejurisdiction.Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of theZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not theword ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered theLOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered ourbase trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries inEurope. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from ourwebsite), including the name ZOPE in it (which we hadalready registered).I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem goingon here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what theZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? There isn't really a communication problem here (though itwould wonderful if there was). There is a backtracking and arewriting of history going on, because ZEA got caught withtheir hands in our cookie jar. They could have settled thisincredibly quietly and quickly. Instead, they chose a paththat has led us here.We could have fought it silently too, so it's 100% true thatwe are the ones that brought this fight into the public. Onthe other hand, I can't imagine what would have happened ifthis private battle dragged on until January, and then wegot beaten up for missing the launch date on the Foundation,and only then alerted the community as to what was going on.So, we did what we thought was the most prudent thing, andalerted the community 2 days after we initiated thechallenge to their registration. I don't know how we couldhave been more transparent about it. ZC saying the marks were stolen seems a little over the top. What if ZEAregistered them defensively? if that's possible then ZEA should be giventhen benefit of the doubt and not be called a thief. If there was aneed to register them to protect "zope", then why didn't ZC do it? Read the above response again (and again if necessary). Moreimportantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during aphone call that they believe that there were deals that theycould not have won if they didn't control the mark? Nowextend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how theZope-based companies that they competed against in Europewould feel if they knew that this was a commercial leveragepoint for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!?And again, read the above to see that our registration of themark "ZOPE" predates theirs. Everybody needs to calm down, stop insulting each other and stopbroadcasting this problem to the whole world on zope-announce (forexample). Its making us all look childish. Indeed, we do look childish, and I'm perhaps _more_ to blamefor that escalation than others. That's why I will try tokeep this as my last communication (at least for a while) onthis topic. That said, a number of people responded sayingthat they were not only glad to be made aware of thisproblem, but were surprised that they didn't know about itsooner.The rhetoric (mine as well!) is louder than it should be,but I believe the issue(s) definitely needed to be aired, asit's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the "facts"are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As anexample, the repeated questioning of why we didn't registerour own marks in Europe, which we did. Making either side into the bad guy is not only innacurate but alsoinappropriate and is not conducive to building a community around thesoftware we all love
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
+---[ Xavier Heymans ]-- | I would like to inform that ZEA is in the process to transfer the trademark to | Zope Corporation. A number of actions will be taken including the preparation | of the list of expenses to secure the trademark, and meetings with our | trademark expert to work on the administrative details. | | We would like to emphasize that no action taken by Zope Europe Association are | illegal from a European perspective. As said earlier, our action was aimed at | securing the mark stopping third party registrations. | You took someone else's work and claimed it as your own. This is the worst crime you can commit in the Open Source world. -- Andrew Milton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Andreas Jung wrote at 2005-7-21 08:29 +0200: ... ZEA silently registering the Zope logo ... If it wasn't a secret I am sure that ZC would know about the secret. This reminds me a discussion between two business students: They planned how to make money with little effort. Their business plan looked like this: Check in which countries Coca Cola (or some other large quickly expanding company) has not registered its trademarks. Register them and wait until Coca Cola recognizes its error. Let them pay for the transferal of the trademark rights. This discussion convinced me that the trademark laws are almost as bad as the patent laws... I do not know ZEA and do not know whether they hired business students like the above But it looks very suspicious when they say that they registered logos they did not design for protective reasons *without* informing the company that officially use these logos (and paid for the design) *before* the registration... -- Dieter ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
HAHAHHAHA!!! LOL! Man! There has got to be some humor in this at some point! Honestly, though, I appreciate your discussions being held here. I truly appreciate the fact that I have Zope to work with and offer to my customers. I feel that I owe that thanks not only to Zope Corporation, but to the community as well. I just wanted to chime in from a tiny part of the *silent majority* so that both parties hear it. I love Zope, we all do. Work this out. :-) Greg On 7/21/05, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZC: Potay-to. ZEA: Potah-to. ZC: Potay-to! ZEA: Potah-to! ZC: Potay-to!! ZEA: Potah-to!! ZC: POTAY-TO, you evil thief!!! ZEA: POTAH-TO you dictatiorial pig!! Not a communications problem? My ass. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) -- Greg Fischer 1st Byte Solutions http://www.1stbyte.com ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 20. Juli 2005 19:17:59 -0500 George Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hadar Pedhazur wrote: ZC says: the marks were stolen ZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem going on here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what the ZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? I am disappointed hearing that ZEA registered the trademarks silently already 18 months ago. The German Zope User Group (DZUG) asked ZC for permission using the Zope logo and the domain name zope.de for our community websites (which was never a problem). But in this case we would have to ask ZEA for permission as keeper of the trademarks in Europe?! I am sorry to say this but the secrecy on the ZEA side is not really acceptable. I can understand ZEA argument to have registered the trademarks for defending Zope from improper use but why did not you notify ZC or the community about it? As someone working in the Zope business I need to know who is having what and why. Such things should not kept secret when you are dealing in the open-source business. So this whole issue is a shame for the complete Zope community. -aj I am a casual watcher of what happens in the Zope community (I only check the development things actively). However I believe that I knew that ZE did register the Zope logo. (All tough instinctively I would have to have gone to ZC to ask for permission to use it should the need have presented itself). So I do not believe it really was a secret, neither is it a cause for disappointment. Somebody had to do it and sometimes you just have to move forward. This is fine with me if you do so as a good community member trying to secure things without going into to much of the legal paperwork that is sure to erupt when you deal in such affairs with an US company. It is the handling of affairs that is .. what should I say .. fascinating. Somehow I have the impression that we had similar exchanges on these canals amongst the same performers before. Seems that being a good person does not necessarily mean you are a nice one. Robert ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
--On 21. Juli 2005 08:02:32 +0200 robert rottermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a casual watcher of what happens in the Zope community (I only check the development things actively). However I believe that I knew that ZE did register the Zope logo. (All tough instinctively I would have to have gone to ZC to ask for permission to use it should the need have presented itself). So I do not believe it really was a secret, neither is it a cause for disappointment. If it wasn't a secret I am sure that ZC would know about the secret. At least after the announcement for the ZF I would have expected that someone from the ZEA would have set: well, the ZF is fine but there is a problem with transfering the right to the ZF because *we* have the trademarks registered in Europe :-) -aj pgpfnPemQQTAk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Am Mittwoch, den 20.07.2005, 19:17 -0500 schrieb George Donnelly: Hadar Pedhazur wrote: ZC says: the marks were stolen ZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem going on here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what the ZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? ZC saying the marks were stolen seems a little over the top. What if ZEA registered them defensively? if that's possible then ZEA should be given then benefit of the doubt and not be called a thief. If there was a need to register them to protect zope, then why didn't ZC do it? Everybody needs to calm down, stop insulting each other and stop broadcasting this problem to the whole world on zope-announce (for example). Its making us all look childish. Making either side into the bad guy is not only innacurate but also inappropriate and is not conducive to building a community around the software we all love and are grateful to ZC and non-ZC related programmers alike for, Zope. +1 this is also my understanding judging from the messages flowing around. The statement of ZC indicates they want to transfer their trademark to ZF and now find the european trademark in other hands. OTOH, why not just transfer/licence what they have (the .us trademark) and just agree to ZEA transfer/licence the european trademark to ZF too? As I understand, the benefit of a ZF with the source in the hand would be to help contributors to defend against patent issues which you probably cant avoid if you do any development. So I really like to see ZF founded as soon as possible. So please ZC and ZEA come together, the community really wants it. May I suggest to create a temp not-public-archived mailinglist to further discuss this issue? -- Tino Wildenhain [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Tino Wildenhain wrote: The statement of ZC indicates they want to transfer their trademark to ZF and now find the european trademark in other hands. OTOH, why not just transfer/licence what they have (the .us trademark) and just agree to ZEA transfer/licence the european trademark to ZF too? No, just the opposite. ZC do *not* want to transfer the marks to the ZF. I do find this position strange. Whilst they are willing to transfer all the IP, for which yes we are grateful. The issue being that many companies around the world are investing marketing money and time in developing and promoting the 'zope brand'. The problem is that this brand now (since ZC renamed from DC) also co-incides with Zope Corporation. The value of this brand is increasing and needs to be protected, hence why the marks have been trademarked in the other companies in which ZC did not register. I am guessing that ZC registered the marks in the countries that are most commercially valuable to them -- an understandable move as it was their bucks paying for it. However the *zope community* extends beyond these countries and needs protection too. The main conflict arises because: * The zope community and Zope Corporation use the same word 'zope' to identify themselves. * ZC don't want to let go of their trademarked name as that is a major asset to their business. * Many people in the zope community feel uneasy that a corporation which can be bought and sold owns the name of the software that they are developing. All these points are perfectly valid and understandable, but what we need to work out is a way in which we can try and combine and merge these conflicting points in a sane way. I personally (remember, these views are all mine) welcome Rob's ideas on how to ensure that ZC's potential successors or assigns use the Zope trademark in a fair way. The problem being, I don't see how that can happen if the trademarks are owned by ZC as if the company were bought it would be up to the new owned what would happen with its own property. Yes we could put a contract in place between ZF and ZC to say that ZF can be the arbiter of any disputes, but I don't see how that can remain in place if ZC changes hands. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development Consulting | Co-location | Hosting ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
George Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZC says: the marks were stolen ZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. I am amazed at how people pick and choose what to read and repeat, and what to ignore. I will mix in a few quotes from a few posts responding to my note yesterday to highlight this problem. After this post, unless someone makes a profound new statement, I will remain silent, as many of you have requested, and complete the trademark challenge process through the official channels that have already begun. George, others have already replied to this, but Rob has written about this as well before, so I'm surprised that this is still a question. A defensive registration of _our_ trademark should have been _explicitly_ called to our attention. In fact, any reasonable company would have alerted us to any specific danger, and asked us if _we_ intended to register our trademarks in the appropriate jurisdiction. Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_ ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had already registered). I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem going on here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what the ZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? There isn't really a communication problem here (though it would wonderful if there was). There is a backtracking and a rewriting of history going on, because ZEA got caught with their hands in our cookie jar. They could have settled this incredibly quietly and quickly. Instead, they chose a path that has led us here. We could have fought it silently too, so it's 100% true that we are the ones that brought this fight into the public. On the other hand, I can't imagine what would have happened if this private battle dragged on until January, and then we got beaten up for missing the launch date on the Foundation, and only then alerted the community as to what was going on. So, we did what we thought was the most prudent thing, and alerted the community 2 days after we initiated the challenge to their registration. I don't know how we could have been more transparent about it. ZC saying the marks were stolen seems a little over the top. What if ZEA registered them defensively? if that's possible then ZEA should be given then benefit of the doubt and not be called a thief. If there was a need to register them to protect zope, then why didn't ZC do it? Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a phone call that they believe that there were deals that they could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!? And again, read the above to see that our registration of the mark ZOPE predates theirs. Everybody needs to calm down, stop insulting each other and stop broadcasting this problem to the whole world on zope-announce (for example). Its making us all look childish. Indeed, we do look childish, and I'm perhaps _more_ to blame for that escalation than others. That's why I will try to keep this as my last communication (at least for a while) on this topic. That said, a number of people responded saying that they were not only glad to be made aware of this problem, but were surprised that they didn't know about it sooner. The rhetoric (mine as well!) is louder than it should be, but I believe the issue(s) definitely needed to be aired, as it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the facts are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register our own marks in Europe, which we did. Making either side into the bad guy is not only innacurate but also inappropriate and is not conducive to building a community around the software we all love and are grateful to ZC and non-ZC related programmers alike for, Zope. Please don't say that things are innacurate when you aren't involved, and have already repeated a number of innacuracies yourself, which were readily available for you to check before you repeated them... Matt Hamilton wrote: No, just the opposite. ZC do *not* want to transfer the marks to the ZF. I do find this position strange. Whilst they are willing to transfer all the IP, for which yes we are grateful. The issue being that
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hadar Pedhazur wrote: Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_ ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had already registered). I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer. A few points I want to clear up... the next two paragraphs I write are about technicalities, I am not refering to any moral right or wrong, or who did what etc. In my view the confusion is apparent. If I go to zope.org I see the same logo (admittedly with the word community added to it). If I install Zope and go to the ZMI one of the first things I see is the Zope logo. I can clearly see how people associate the logo with the software. Very few clients (and potential clients) we talk to in the UK are even aware of ZC... *in their mind* Zope is a CMS not a company. And please please please remember that there is no such thing as 'registered the trademark in Europe'. There are many companies in Europe and the trademarks have to be registered in specific countries. Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a phone call that they believe that there were deals that they could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!? You are twisting the truth here -- I wish I had recorded the phone call now to prevent the chinese whispers :) On the call to Lois, Xavier said that there are certain possibilities of using Zope for EU projects which would be hampered by a corporation (ie ZC) owning the trademark to the OSS software. ZEA does not want the trademark. Repeat. ZEA does not want the trademark. it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the facts are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register our own marks in Europe, which we did. Yes, you are still mis-understanding the facts. Europe consists of many countries, of which you registered the mark in just six - Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Italy. ZEA then went on to further protect the mark registering it in: Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyrus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine Amazingly enough, we have owned the trademark since 2002 (we changed our name in 2001, and it took that long to get the trademark registered in the US). There was _no_ hope of a Foundation at the time. Yet, by your own admission, you and others continued to invest marketing money in the brand. Why? Because we believed (and still want to believe) in the good of all the parties involved. I guess when we started investing in promoting the software there was no confusion with the name, now there is. The more amazing part is that now that we will transfer the IP to the Foundation, and give an _irrevocable_ license to the Foundation for the use of the word ZOPE to brand the software (which can _never_ be taken back, even if someone acquires us), but somehow, _now_ you are worried about investing in the Zope brand. I simply can't connect the dots. I guess its because IANAL, but I just: 1) Don't understand how an irrevocable license works. 2) Am still unclear of licencing issues, when Rob spoke at EPC about the foundation it was very unclear as to who would make decisions on licensing, in some cases ZC would have the final say, and in some cases the ZF. It just seemed confusing to me. 3) ZC is a very small, yet very powerful part of the Zope Community (maybe this is just my view from Europe). Can you explain to me exactly what benefits ZC has in holding the trademarks as opposed to them being held by an independant foundation? The fact that ZC doesn't want them to be held by an independant 3rd party makes me think something sinister is planned on the horizon. Two months ago, you would invest, when there was no Foundation on the horizon, and the Zope software could be revoked by a future acquirer of ZC. Now, there will be a guaranteed future for the Zope software and brand forever, independent of ZC, but that's somehow now risky for you to invest... Yes a future acquirer of ZC could try and revoke the software, but it is licensed under the ZPL so is joint ownership. I think this creates enough of an incentive to prevent this happening as much of the code is contributed by people other than ZC. I agree that Rob's
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hadar Pedhazur wrote: George Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Making either side into the bad guy is not only innacurate but also inappropriate and is not conducive to building a community around the software we all love and are grateful to ZC and non-ZC related programmers alike for, Zope. Please don't say that things are innacurate when you aren't involved, and have already repeated a number of innacuracies yourself, which were readily available for you to check before you repeated them... Thankfully i'm not directly involved in these pointless internecine battles between ZC and one of its founders, but I am involved in the zope community and ZC brought this issue into the community so i am involved as is everyone else here. You don't get to make the issue public and then tell people they aren't involved. According to rob page's post of yesterday, Zope registered the word Zope while ZEA registered the Zope logo. So when i ask why didn't ZC register the marks earlier, i am clearly not repeating an innaccuracy, unless you are saying that rob page's post to zope announce was innacurate. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
ZC: Potay-to. ZEA: Potah-to. ZC: Potay-to! ZEA: Potah-to! ZC: Potay-to!! ZEA: Potah-to!! ZC: POTAY-TO, you evil thief!!! ZEA: POTAH-TO you dictatiorial pig!! Not a communications problem? My ass. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Pre-amble: I post this as a principal in a decently-sized Zope-focused business in the UK. Our company is also partnering with ZEA for some work. I will try to correct some of Rob's factual errors, and set the record straight for some of the issues discussed here. I am not an official spokesperson of ZEA, though - so bear in mind that what I'm saying here reflects what *I* (and my company) think about the situation, and not what ZEA thinks. I know a bit about why the decision to register the trademarks in Europe was made, why the managing partners of ZEA authorised it, and what's going on on the other side of the fence. I am reasonably neutral, though - and care more about what happens to Zope the *community* than anything else. - Matt Hamilton, Netsight On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:07:25 +0200, Rob Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are sorely disappointed that ZEA is unwilling to transfer the marks quickly and quietly so that we can proceed swiftly toward the formation of the Zope Foundation. This is wrong. ZEA offered you to transfer the trademarks if you covered the expenses involved in the registration (including the salary of the trademark professionals involved in the registration process), no strings attached - but Zope Corporation declined, and was more interested in sending threatening letters about trademark abuse, even though ZEA is the rightful owner of these marks in Europe at the moment. They were more interested in having the matter resolved *their* way than to cover the actual costs involved in registering the trademarks from ZEA's side. We have offered to reimburse the registration fees paid by the ZEA to the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) in order to facilitate the transfer. We have further offered to preserve their license to use the Zope mark in the conduct of their business as an association of Zope companies. Aidan McGuire of Blue Fountain (another UK zope company), Xavier Heymans (of ZEA) and myself had a conference call with Lois Snitkoff from ZC on the 12th of July in which we offered to transfer the trademark if ZC contribute to the fees of the registration and, in the unwillingness to transfer the trademark to the ZF, at least agree to some form of 'social contract' that states the uses and rights of the mark. After consulting with others within ZC Lois' reply stated: Just to let you know quickly, we will not be paying any of the costs incurred when you registered our trademark. I have checked with management and they reiterate what our position has been consistently. Which directly contradicts what is said above. In the three weeks since learning of ZEA's illegitimate registration of our marks we have tried diligently (but unsuccessfully) to get ZEA to unconditionally transfer the rights of the registration. The registrations were not illegitimate, the Zope trademark was not registered anywhere but in the US at this point, so it was done as a defensive move to make sure the trademark was in friendly hands. In Europe you have companies/trademarks like ZOPEN that could have been problematic for the registration and approval, so a decision was made early on to secure the trademark for the Zope *community*. The companies that constitute ZEA make up a large part of the professional Zope companies in Europe, and they have a lot to lose by the brand being insecure in Europe. And in what way does not accepting ZEA's offer, to transfer the trademark to you by covering the costs involved in the registration, constitute try diligently? ZEA's registration represents an abuse of registration and management of international trademarks and the misappropriation of a mark that is clearly the property of Zope Corporation. So why is Zope Foundation being used as a pawn in the corporate strategies of Zope Corporation? I find this unclear intent pretty disconcerting. We know that the establishment of a fair trademark license for the entire Zope community is an _essential_ component of the Zope Foundation. It is possible that we will come to a conclusion with the ZEA prior to the conclusion of a trademark dispute process. So why are you unwilling to put the Zope trademark under the ownership of Zope *Foundation*? Again, Zope Foundation is being used as a pawn in the company strategies of Zope Corporation. As an aside, the ZEA has also registered the Plone logo as a trademark. It is not our business, but came as a surprise to us, that the Plone Foundation is not the owner of the Plone trademark. Not true. ZEA's trademark experts helped Plone Foundation register the Plone trademark initially, and promptly transferred the ownership of the trademarks to the Plone Foundation, just as they are willing to do the same for Zope Foundation. Personally, I find it interesting that Zope Corporation insists on ownership of the trademark instead of putting it in the Foundation. The moment Zope Corporation goes bankrupt, any company can buy the
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
--On 20. Juli 2005 12:43:22 +0100 Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZEA's registration represents an abuse of registration and management of international trademarks and the misappropriation of a mark that is clearly the property of Zope Corporation. So why is Zope Foundation being used as a pawn in the corporate strategies of Zope Corporation? I find this unclear intent pretty disconcerting. Why did not ZEA came up with such arguments against the ZF *much earlier*? The ZF proposal is out since some weeks. There was meanwhile an IRC chat with Rob, a lengthy discussion on the mailing list and Rob spoke at Europython. I can not remember having heard any objections from ZEA against this proposal. I have not heard any public statements of Paul Everitt at Europython during the ZF presentation *against* the ZF. Speaking as independent developer - neither representing the interests of ZC nor of ZEA - I find these behind-the-curtain negotiations extremely counterproductive from the community point of view and definitely not in the sense of the Zope community. -aj pgp7d0NH2R7td.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Andreas Jung wrote: --On 20. Juli 2005 12:43:22 +0100 Matt Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZEA's registration represents an abuse of registration and management of international trademarks and the misappropriation of a mark that is clearly the property of Zope Corporation. So why is Zope Foundation being used as a pawn in the corporate strategies of Zope Corporation? I find this unclear intent pretty disconcerting. Why did not ZEA came up with such arguments against the ZF *much earlier*? Speaking for me, I felt asking this type of questions suspecting ZC to found ZF for its own sake would not have helped. Having a Foundation is a major step if we can manage to have it built community-oriented. If you remember well, I did ask some questions about the tone of the IRC chat which I did not feel as an opened discussion : rather I felt it as a suite of questions/answers about things that were presented like facts. I had the feeling that my reaction was already misunderstood my some of the attendants. So I did not even think of speaking of the trademark question... which had striked me as one of the critical points : IIRC, the TM was the first thing mentioned in ZC longer explanation. The ZF proposal is out since some weeks. There was meanwhile an IRC chat with Rob, a lengthy discussion on the mailing list and Rob spoke at Europython. I can not remember having heard any objections from ZEA against this proposal. I have not heard any public statements of Paul Everitt at Europython during the ZF presentation *against* the ZF. There is nothing against the ZF : there is sthing against ZC being the sole owner of the TMs when the current value of it has been established by the community as a whole, especially out of USA. This is why I support the proposal made by a few members of the community to have the ZF own the TMs and that would give a perpetual license to Zope Corporation to use it. For instance, ...it would be far better for everyone if Zope Corporation were instead to transfer the trademark to the foundation and receive a perpetual/irrevocable/etc. license back. posted by webmaven on plope.org see http://plope.org/Members/chrism/namechange/talkback/1120068594/discussionitem_view Speaking as independent developer - neither representing the interests of ZC nor of ZEA - I find these behind-the-curtain negotiations extremely counterproductive from the community point of view and definitely not in the sense of the Zope community. -aj It's definitely better to speak about it in the open air, where we all will be able to think about it together. Disclaimer : I'd like to remind english-only-speaking readers that my mothertongue is french not english. IOW, some of my words may need to be explained rather than taken literally. -- Godefroid Chapelle (aka __gotcha)- BubbleNet http://bubblenet.be ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hi Godefroid, Godefroid Chapelle wrote: It's definitely better to speak about it in the open air, where we all will be able to think about it together. Amen. I wasn't aware of this until ten minutes ago, and now it seems a whole bunch of stuff has gone on, up to and including people getting shirty with each other, which I would have liked to have known about earlier. I'm an independent developer and I'm pretty quiet in the community, but I've pretty much bet my livelihood on Zope - this stuff /matters/ to me! What makes me unhappy about this is people making sweeping and inaccurate statements which also imply bad faith. The idea that an organisation that only registered a trademark in one territory describes the registration of the same mark in a /different/ territory as a violation is very irksome because it ignores the nature of trademark law (in which context ZC not registering it in Europe is negligence, plain and simple, if they want to pursue it), but infinitely more irksome is the implication that this was somehow done in bad faith, when what little I know about it indicates the exact opposite. This has the potential to make the Zope community look like muppets, and not in a good Swedish chef kind of way... -- Regards, PhilK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public key: http://www.xfr.co.uk Voicemail Facsimile: 07092 070518 You'll find that one part's sweet and one part's tart: say where the sweetness and the sourness start. - Tony Harrison ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Philip Kilner wrote: This has the potential to make the Zope community look like muppets, and not in a good Swedish chef kind of way... I'm not sure muppetism applies to the Zope community, it appears to be Zope Corporation who are coming out of this looking less than clever. It's a shame, because really, they should be the ones benefitting from the community they've created, but instead they're more and more isolating themselves from a community which is finally starting to realise that Zope's continued popularity is not predicated on the survival of Zope Corporation. I hope Lois in particular reads this and understands that you can't bully an open source community, and doing so is likely going have much worse consequences for the bully in the medium to long term than it will for the people being bullied. cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hi Chris, Chris Withers wrote: This has the potential to make the Zope community look like muppets, and not in a good Swedish chef kind of way... I'm not sure muppetism applies to the Zope community, it appears to be Zope Corporation who are coming out of this looking less than clever. Agreed/understood - but ZC are part of the community, too - the BDFL part, I guess. I was trying to be as inclusive as possible, since it takes two to get into these messes... -- Regards, PhilK Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public key: http://www.xfr.co.uk Voicemail Facsimile: 07092 070518 You'll find that one part's sweet and one part's tart: say where the sweetness and the sourness start. - Tony Harrison ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Philip Kilner wrote: Agreed/understood - but ZC are part of the community, too - the BDFL part, I guess. Well, ZC are becoming less benign and more dictatorial, and that's where the BDFL model breaks down... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Godefroid Chapelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing against the ZF : there is sthing against ZC being the sole owner of the TMs when the current value of it has been established by the community as a whole, especially out of USA. This is why I support the proposal made by a few members of the community to have the ZF own the TMs and that would give a perpetual license to Zope Corporation to use it. This is beyond my understanding. ZC created Zope. ZC created the brand. ZC is called Zope Corp. Why on earth would they relinquish the core asset that is their trademark and branding? It's theirs. They're giving the full use of it to the community. What's wrong with that? Why do you want, require, more? The current state of what ZC proposes doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything reasonable. Give them your hand, and they'll ask for your arm... Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) CTO, Director of RD +33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Dave Kuhlman wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 07:07:25PM -0400, Rob Page wrote: [snip] During my stay at EuroPython I learned that eighteen months ago (and without Zope Corporation's knowledge or consent) Zope Europe Association (ZEA) registered a trademark consisting of the Cirlce-Z (the stylized Z surrounded by a circle) followed by the word ZOPE (hereinafter Circle-Z-Zope). The mark they registered is identical to the corporate logo used by Zope Corporation. At the Zope Europe Association Web site (http://www.zope-europe.org/), the logo is 3 cubes with a 3-dimensional look. Has Zope Europe Association registered the Circle-Z-Zope trademark but is not using it? Apparently. Go to: http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/search/madrid/search-struct.jsp and enter Zope in the Holder Name field and click Search. You will see 5 results. The first is for the Zope Corporation registration of the name Zope, registered in May 2004. The next four results are for ZEA's registrations of the Zope and Plone marks, with logos (2 each, for different sets of countries) registered in July and September of 2004. Or is there another Zope Europe Association? Nope, the addresses match. Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Florent Guillaume wrote: The current state of what ZC proposes doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything reasonable. Give them your hand, and they'll ask for your arm... Indeed. I don't have any problem with ZC keeping the trademarks, but why are they tying the creation of the foundation onto their retreival of their lost marks? The two seem totally unconnected to me... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Hadar Pedhazur wrote: ZC says: the marks were stolen ZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem going on here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what the ZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? ZC saying the marks were stolen seems a little over the top. What if ZEA registered them defensively? if that's possible then ZEA should be given then benefit of the doubt and not be called a thief. If there was a need to register them to protect zope, then why didn't ZC do it? Everybody needs to calm down, stop insulting each other and stop broadcasting this problem to the whole world on zope-announce (for example). Its making us all look childish. Making either side into the bad guy is not only innacurate but also inappropriate and is not conducive to building a community around the software we all love and are grateful to ZC and non-ZC related programmers alike for, Zope. -- george donnelly ~ http://www.zettai.net/ ~ Quality Zope Hosting Complete Zope Hosting ~ Managed Servers ~ Plone Hosting Solutions Y/AIM: zettainet ~ Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Sales: (866) 408-5395 ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
Everybody needs to calm down, stop insulting each other and stop broadcasting this problem to the whole world on zope-announce (for example). Its making us all look childish. +1. Please folks, remember that this is a public venue and your words will be archived for a long time. Let's have no more name-calling, and no more mysterious digs at named and unnamed third parties. FWIW, I think the Foundation is an important and commendable initiative, and I think ZC has been doing a pretty good job of supporting and reaching out to the community lately. And now more than ever, the amount of software that we get free (and Free) from ZC is just staggering. The trademark issue is an unfortunate, if unignorable, distraction from the progress that's being made. I remain hopeful that an amicable solution is forthcoming. -PW ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update
--On 20. Juli 2005 19:17:59 -0500 George Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hadar Pedhazur wrote: ZC says: the marks were stolen ZEA seems to be saying: the marks were registered defensively. My read on this is that there is a serious communication problem going on here between the lines. Why doesn't Paul come out and state what the ZEA position is? Why are ZC's words so angry? I am disappointed hearing that ZEA registered the trademarks silently already 18 months ago. The German Zope User Group (DZUG) asked ZC for permission using the Zope logo and the domain name zope.de for our community websites (which was never a problem). But in this case we would have to ask ZEA for permission as keeper of the trademarks in Europe?! I am sorry to say this but the secrecy on the ZEA side is not really acceptable. I can understand ZEA argument to have registered the trademarks for defending Zope from improper use but why did not you notify ZC or the community about it? As someone working in the Zope business I need to know who is having what and why. Such things should not kept secret when you are dealing in the open-source business. So this whole issue is a shame for the complete Zope community. -aj pgpLmh9Ka2uMx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
