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 )
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
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
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 )
