Understood, so per our earlier interchange I'd hope that more clear Apache ownership of the current logo can help to simplify rights and claims. Nest, John On Jun 5, 2013 12:49 PM, "Upayavira" <[email protected]> wrote:
> While a logo might be open source, trademark law will restrict what you > can do with it. It is important to recognise that logos are kind of a > special case in open source. > > Upayavira > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 02:23 PM, John Blossom wrote: > > Copyright is claimed for the logo by Google but the word Wave is too > > generic and used too widely to be likely to be trademarked in association > > with the logo. The main concern that I have is that Apache should ensure > > a > > more clear ownership of the logo. But if it is used only on open source > > projects, then by definition CC should be fine for now anyway. > > On Jun 4, 2013 3:04 PM, "Alfredo Abambres" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Was the OpenWave logo submitted to the organization responsible for > > > certification of TM or R in the US or any other country by Google or > > > Apache? > > > > > > If not, then we cannot (legally) use the TM symbol or the "trademark" > word. > > > > > > AFAIK, (and I don't know much) the logo was designed and set to use a > CC > > > attribution license. No legal registration happened, but I may be wrong > > > about the registration. Anyhow, if that happened, then a legal document > > > should be in someone's archive. > > > > > > Wave On. > > > > > > http://alfredo.abambres.com > > > > > > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria > Rilke* > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:10 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > That does seem to be the one that's referenced in the rights page. I > am > > > not > > > > sure where they stand in clarifying the rights ownership transfer > with > > > > Google, but either way it seems to be the right one. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > > > John Blossom > > > > > > > > at 6:20 AM, Yuri Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yep, I think we have rights only for the open wave logo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Angus Turner < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I know for sure we have the rights for the Open Wave one, not > sure > > > > about > > > > > > the wiab. I personally think we should go for the openwave, and > can > > > add > > > > > the > > > > > > trademark to it if needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Angus Turner > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Ali Lown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian has raised the point that we need to attach > 'Trademark' > > > to > > > > > > > the wave logo before we can release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We seem to be using a different logo in the project to the one > on > > > the > > > > > > > website: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/branches/wave-0.4-release/war/static/logo.png > > > > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/wave/images/OpenWaveLogo.png > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which of these should we be using going forward? (Presumably > the > > > Open > > > > > > > Wave logo?) (Do we have rights over the wave-in-a-box one?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
