Hi,
> it is common to have the second sentence about “No other license..” when
> trademarks are used in content that has open licenses.
I’d hardly say it’s common. A google search returns no hits for it (other than
this thread) and no other Adobe OS project that I could find is using it. The
on
Adobe legal pretty much explained the situation as I did. They said that
it is common to have the second sentence about “No other license..” when
trademarks are used in content that has open licenses. So, AIUI, no need
to worry about who can fix missing attributions.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 4/28/15, 8
On 4/27/15, 7:01 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> ...So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the
>>>following text
>>> in the middle...
>>>
>>> Th
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> ...So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the following
>> text
>> in the middle...
>>
>> The product field can have the values: ColdFusion, Flex,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the following
> text
> in the middle...
>
> The product field can have the values: ColdFusion, Flex,
> Dreamweaver, and Illustrator
>
> ... and then the following text
Hi,
> 3. Have an authorized agent of Adobe modify the trademark whitelist
>prior to publication.
>
> That seems OK to me since you are an Adobe employee and you are assuring us
> that you have discussed the matter with Adobe legal and obtained permission to
> perform that specific mitigation
HI,
> I would be surprised if this gives me permission to add other Apache
> trademarks to my blog title.
You can add any Apache trademark as long as you correctly attribute it, there’s
no need to ask for permission.
However if it was an Adobe trademark with that extra clause you would need to
On 4/26/15, 9:57 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>> Are you saying once we let someone use Apache Foo, they can also use
>> Apache Bar without asking again?
>
>As long at as it's correctly attributed and follows Apache trademark
>guidelines/policy [1] there’s no need to ask for permission to
HI,
> Are you saying once we let someone use Apache Foo, they can also use
> Apache Bar without asking again?
As long at as it's correctly attributed and follows Apache trademark
guidelines/policy [1] there’s no need to ask for permission to use an Apache
trademark. You’ll note it states "Anyon
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> "If I missed listing a trademark, I’ll add it in
> the first commit after this donation lands in the repo, but where the
> trademark names are just used in an example to show people how to put a
> list of things in a UI widget, I’ll just replac
On 4/26/15, 9:27 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>> Isn’t this always the case?
>
>No, it's only the addition of that extra sentence that causes the issue.
The Apache preferred attribution is ""Apache, Apache Foo, and Foo are
trademarks of The Apache Software Foundation. Used with permission
Hi,
> The list of Adobe products in the text at the bottom was created by me
> from a template given to me by Adobe lawyers. Apparently, I missed
> listing a few products.
Are you 100% sure you have permission to modify that list of trademarks, given
the wording of the second sentence? Can you
HI,
> Isn’t this always the case?
No, it's only the addition of that extra sentence that causes the issue.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gene
Hi,
> It seems as those Adobe has denied us the use of "ColdFusion", "Dreamweaver",
> and "Illustrator" by not including them in the whitelist, and then using the
> "no other license" language.
Yep that exactly my concern.
> Possible mitigations would be:
>
> 1. Remove "ColdFusion", "Dreamweav
On 4/26/15, 9:10 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> Please explain in this thread or in the JIRA issue why this a concern.
>> How is this bad for Apache?
>
>So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the following
>text
>in the
On 4/26/15, 9:00 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Alex I have no idea what you discussed with Adobe legal so it would be
>better if you raised it.
>
>The issue is the "No other license to the Adobe trademarks are granted.”
>which probbably means we can only use the trademarks initially listed
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Please explain in this thread or in the JIRA issue why this a concern.
> How is this bad for Apache?
So, if I look on the page `flx_olapdatagrid_ol.html`, I see the following text
in the middle...
The product field can have the values: Col
Hi,
Alex I have no idea what you discussed with Adobe legal so it would be better
if you raised it.
The issue is the "No other license to the Adobe trademarks are granted.” which
probbably means we can only use the trademarks initially listed by Adobe and I
don’t think we can change that list
Justin,
I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand your concern. I think you’ll have
to create the JIRA issue and describe it.
Here’s the template again: "Adobe and are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems
Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries
and are use
Hi,
> Where can I see that non standard attribution?
Alex you mind doing the honours given you had the discussion with Adobe legal.
I assume it would need to be a LEGAL Jira.
JFYI On the weekend I asked an associate at a law firm specialising in IP /
trademark law and their (unpaid) informal v
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> ...Adobe legal have asked to add a non standard attribution which may (or may
> not) exclude
> us using their other trademarks like Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver,
> ColdFusion etc
> that are also contained within the donated con
Hi,
> In my opinion mentioning such trademarks in documentation is perfectly
> ok as long as we acknowledge them, I don't see how that could cause
> harm to their owner.
And normally that would be the case and everything would be fine.
However Adobe legal have asked to add a non standard attribu
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
>>...can you clarify what you mean by "use
>> those trademarks”?
>
> By use I just mean have them appear in the existing text as they currently
> do. Obviously
> the missing attributions would also need to be added...
So IIUC the donate
On 4/23/15, 2:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> IIUC this is about additional Flex documentation being donated to be
>> published at http://flex.apache.org/ - if that's correct please
>> provide an example of how a trademark would be used in that context
>
>Alex is best to provide that given t
Hi,
> I'm vaguely trying to follow, can you clarify what you mean by "use
> those trademarks”?
By use I just mean have them appear in the existing text as they currently do.
Obviously the missing attributions would also need to be added.
That use depends if we have permission to use them or not
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:01 PM, jan i wrote:
> ...all these edits need not be completed before the donation is tranferred,
> but should be before any real publication...
Agreed, and the best way to handle this is to create the corresponding
jira tickets before importing the content, to describe
On Thursday, April 23, 2015, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 4/22/15, 3:47 PM, "Justin Mclean" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> "Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing”
> >
> >By fix did they mean remove them all or add missing trademarks? What
> >exactly was the advice they
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:47 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>...I'm asking that you make sure we have permission to use those
> trademarks in the donation or consider removing them...
I'm vaguely trying to follow, can you clarify what you mean by "use
those trademarks"?
IIUC this is about additi
On 4/22/15, 3:47 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> "Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing”
>
>By fix did they mean remove them all or add missing trademarks? What
>exactly was the advice they gave?
Like I said upthread "If I missed listing a trademark, I’ll ad
Hi,
> "Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing”
By fix did they mean remove them all or add missing trademarks? What exactly
was the advice they gave?
Given the discussion took place off list and the Flex PMC was not involved in
this donation I have no way of knowi
On 4/22/15, 2:25 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>> If I missed listing a trademark, I’ll add it in
>
>I think this has come up before (original Flex SDK donation?). From
>memory Adobe is (overly) protective of their (non donatated) trademarks
>wanted to make sure that they don't become dilut
HI,
> If I missed listing a trademark, I’ll add it in
I think this has come up before (original Flex SDK donation?). From memory
Adobe is (overly) protective of their (non donatated) trademarks wanted to make
sure that they don't become diluted by association with open source so would
prefer n
On 4/22/15, 6:38 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I guess I don’t understand. For review, the language is variations of:
>>
>> "Adobe and Adobe Flash are either registered trademarks or trademarks of
>> Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries
>>and
>> are us
Hi,
> I guess I don’t understand. For review, the language is variations of:
>
> "Adobe and Adobe Flash are either registered trademarks or trademarks of
> Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries and
> are used by permission from Adobe. No other license to the Adob
Hi,
> I don’t think those words would be removed. No other license/permission has
> been granted.
Then can you please explain how we can accept the donation if we don’t have
legal permission to use trademarks it contains.
Thanks,
Justin
On 4/22/15, 12:09 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>(resending from correct email address - sorry if this shows up twice)
>
>> I don’t think those words would be removed. No other
>>license/permission has been granted.
>
>Can you please explain how we can accept the donation if we don’t have
Hi,
(resending from correct email address - sorry if this shows up twice)
> I don’t think those words would be removed. No other license/permission has
> been granted.
Can you please explain how we can accept the donation if we don’t have legal
permission to use trademarks it contains.
Than
On 4/21/15, 1:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing to
>>the
>> repo as long as we do it quickly.
>
>I assume that means that “No other license to the Adobe trademarks are
>granted.” would need to be removed?
I don’t think t
Hi,
> Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing to the
> repo as long as we do it quickly.
I assume that means that “No other license to the Adobe trademarks are
granted.” would need to be removed?
Thanks,
Justin
Code is accepted.
Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing to the
repo as long as we do it quickly.
Thanks to Justin for finding the things that need more cleanup.
-Alex
On 4/18/15, 6:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>+0 (binding) until "No other license to the
40 matches
Mail list logo
