You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/06/14 00:48:46 UTC

[DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org

I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark 
Usage

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html

First item, logos:

"For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."

I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" 
page, which is not the same as the logo on the website:

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png

-or- the older web logo

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png

So, I would like to do a few things:

- also put
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png

in
http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos

Change

"For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."

-- to --

"For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."

and link the word "logos" to all elements in:

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos

(there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)

I will also change the logos area in:

http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/

and list all possible logos in:

http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/


Second item, other artwork:

All artwork in:
http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/

seems to be either LGPL or PDL.

I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise 
viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use 
and tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, 
I think the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the 
actual logo and nothing else):

"If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify 
an object as you like subject to the following conditions:

(1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html

(2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want 
to use (either LGPL or PDL)

(3) If the object is licensed with LGPL 
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as 
you like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as 
the provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based

(3) If the object is licensed PDL 
(http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object 
as you desire but must make you modification publicly available.

--- end of items ---

We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in 
various forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki 
barely started, but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the 
elements correctly aligned before I can complete that.


- -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
        -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
>> remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish is to make it easier for the end user to
> distinguish between things they need to ask permission to use -- a finite
> set of actually "trademarked" items I'm assuming (but it could be my
> understanding of that term is just wrong), and things they don't -- because
> they fall under some licensing -- LGPL, PDL, or ALv2.
>

Something can be both trademarked and be under a LPGL, PDL or ALv2
license.  The license deals with copyright, which is different from
trademark.  These are two different species of intellectual property.
(Patents would be a third species, but that is not an issue in this
case)

The license might allow someone to copy the logo, modify it,
redistribute, etc., just like an OSS license allows someone to do the
same with source code.  But if there is also a trademark claimed on
the logo, that restricts the things someone can do with the logo.
These restrictions are in addition to whatever restrictions are there
per the license.

For example, take our main project logo.  If that were available under
a permissive license, someone could copy, modify, redistribute that
logo.  They might be able to print it out, put it in a frame and hang
it on their wall, for example.  But they would not be able to put it
on a website advertising "Open Office downloads" where the website was
actually downloading other software,  The trademark protects a symbol
associated with the origin of a product.

Think for example, of the controlled appellations in the EC,
associated with wines and cheese and other food products.  They ensure
that the use of the term "Parmigiano-Reggiano" is used for only a
specific kind of cheese from a specific region of Italy.  No one else
can legally use that name.  It is like a trademark, protecting a name
that defines the origin of a product.

> So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but
> not limited to".
>
> Why isn't this set limited?
>

The set is limited by what we actually use in the project to identify
the product.  But these logos can occur in many different variations
and combinations. I don't think we can enumerate them all.  And there
is risk if we claim to have listed them all, but then miss one, or
fail to keep the list up to date.

>
>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.
>
>
> Right, which I why I wanted to point them to just the items in
>  /images/AOO_logos
>
> so they know exactly which ones they need to request permission for.
>
>  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>
>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>
>> > Second item, other artwork:
>> >
>> > All artwork in:
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> >
>> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use
>> and
>> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
>> think
>> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>> > and nothing else):
>> >
>>
>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> to use the trademark.
>>
>
> No,it doesn't. I'm sorry -- maybe I was too confusing. It's ONLY the
> trademarked items that we consider logos. We need to have them continue to
> request permission for those.
>
>
>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>>
>
> We OK -- that's what I'm trying to clarify. I saw the page for "Get It
> Here".
>
>
>
>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>
>
> I'm thinking more in terms of expediting uses of the other artwork
> elements. Or do you think this isn't necessary given the license statements?
>

Maybe it would help if we could discuss a specific artwork file?  Is
there a good example of what that you think should not require
permission?


>
>>
>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>> to confuse or lure users.
>>
>> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>> >
>> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>>
>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.
>
>
> Yes, but I think people are getting confused about what the logos
> are...this was kind of my point here.
>
>
>>  We also give
>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>> keep that info all in one place.
>>
>> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
>> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
>> you
>> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
>> object as
>> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>> >
>> > --- end of items ---
>> >
>> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
>> various
>> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
>> started,
>> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
>> correctly
>> > aligned before I can complete that.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>> use in certain situations.
>>
>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>> trademark.
>>
>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>> not include our logos.
>>
>
> Well this is one of those weird areas. The other artwork we have out there
> has licenses that indicate folks can indeed modify them -- the artwork.
> I would LOVE if Drew would contribute his artwork. The artwork itself might
> be licensed with ALv2, I guess? or not...this is really the crux of what we
> need to make easier for users.
>
> If everyone feels its already as simple as it can be, well that's OK too.
>
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>> > - -
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
>> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> > Usage
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
> > First item, logos:
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> >
> > -or- the older web logo
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> >
> > So, I would like to do a few things:
> >
> > - also put
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> >
> > in
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > Change
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > -- to --
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> >
> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
> remove)
> >
> > I will also change the logos area in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > and list all possible logos in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> >
> >
>
> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> to", is fine.
>

What I'm trying to accomplish is to make it easier for the end user to
distinguish between things they need to ask permission to use -- a finite
set of actually "trademarked" items I'm assuming (but it could be my
understanding of that term is just wrong), and things they don't -- because
they fall under some licensing -- LGPL, PDL, or ALv2.

So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but
not limited to".

Why isn't this set limited?



> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> And we're not limited to a single symbol.


Right, which I why I wanted to point them to just the items in
 /images/AOO_logos

so they know exactly which ones they need to request permission for.

 The question is really
> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>
> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>
> > Second item, other artwork:
> >
> > All artwork in:
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> >
> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use
> and
> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
> think
> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
> > and nothing else):
> >
>
> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> to use the trademark.
>

No,it doesn't. I'm sorry -- maybe I was too confusing. It's ONLY the
trademarked items that we consider logos. We need to have them continue to
request permission for those.


> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>

We OK -- that's what I'm trying to clarify. I saw the page for "Get It
Here".



> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>

I'm thinking more in terms of expediting uses of the other artwork
elements. Or do you think this isn't necessary given the license statements?


>
> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> to confuse or lure users.
>
> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> >
> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
>
> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.


Yes, but I think people are getting confused about what the logos
are...this was kind of my point here.


>  We also give
> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> keep that info all in one place.
>
> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
> you
> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
> object as
> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
> >
> > --- end of items ---
> >
> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
> various
> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
> started,
> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
> correctly
> > aligned before I can complete that.
> >
>
> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
> use in certain situations.
>
> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
> trademark.
>
> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
> not include our logos.
>

Well this is one of those weird areas. The other artwork we have out there
has licenses that indicate folks can indeed modify them -- the artwork.
I would LOVE if Drew would contribute his artwork. The artwork itself might
be licensed with ALv2, I guess? or not...this is really the crux of what we
need to make easier for users.

If everyone feels its already as simple as it can be, well that's OK too.



>
> -Rob
>
> >
> > - -
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Nancy K <na...@yahoo.com>.

Hi,
I wanted to address the concern on this thread about making it easier for the user to also locate images.  What would you think about a central page listing the links for all images?  I was thinking that it should be someplace easy for the user to find, not buried too deeply - such as the Download page under the Resource secondary heading.  This might be the quickest way for a user to find images, possibly with a descriptive link such as, 'Images you can use'. Another place might be the Support tab - leading from all of the options on the openoffice.org page however, just about everyone ends up on the download page.

My first thoughts were about having several folders, and subfolders that could move forward with the project.  Placing the actual images and informational pages, such as this rough beginning:



Images>Guidelines
>When to seek approval
>FAQ
>Logos
>Current - i.e. official current version logo images with alt keywords for usability/SEO in link -with guidelines if different or referral to applicable guidelines in the Guideline folder


>Future Contests
>Rules(size,format,descriptive file name, etc)
>AOO 3.4 entries
>Archive 
>Icons
>Current
>Future Contests
 >Archive section or folders for each year's contest

>Presentations
>Manuals
>Impress/Video presentations that anyone can use (or add terms of use either on a page or separate folder)
>Contest>any breakdown method such as by year or version release
>Miscellaneous
>Photo
>Vector Art
Once a contest is complete, the winning image/s move to the CURRENT folder, and the old replaced images move to the Archives.

On the other hand I think even a list of links on one collective page with the same categories as headings and subheadings would work just as well. The link to this page could be on the Download page, under Marketing, a wiki, or anywhere else that one might want to link a reference to the images available - and nothing would necessarily have to move to a new URL location.  If it is a page of links, the current images could stay wherever you wanted them, just update this one page should the images move to a new URL.


Thoughts?
Nancy
  
 
     Nancy      Web Design   
Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com.
Video courses on SEO, CMS,
Design and Software Courses

   

________________________________
 From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes
 
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Kevin Grignon
<ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> KG01 - See comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
>> remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>
>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>
>> > Second item, other artwork:
>> >
>> > All artwork in:
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> >
>> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use
>> and
>> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
>> think
>> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>> > and nothing else):
>> >
>>
>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> to use the trademark.
>>
>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>
>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>> to confuse or lure users.
>>
>> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>> >
>> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>>
>> KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused
> an interested party would be. While we can maintain living wiki docs that


Actually, we get many requests, sometimes several a week, per the
requirements of that exact trademark.html page.  Those who deal in
trademarks, at a professional level, know to look for the trademark
page and know what to ask for.  So for those whose business depends on
getting this right, ranging from book publishers, to education
services websites to movie studies (and yes, that has happened) this
information is helpful.

As a 2nd category, the random average user or developer who wants to
promote OpenOffice, they typically don't know or care enough to even
ask permission.  On the other hand, they are probably causing little
harm.  But if they are not looking for permission, then having
detailed pages explaining this stuff probably won't help them.  They
are not finding what they aren't looking for.

And as the 3rd category we have a small number of websites that are
intentionally abusing our trademarks in order to lure users in, to
sell them copies of OpenOffice, in some cases adulterated copies, that
have bundled adware applications.  They are another category that is
not seeking permission to use the trademarks.

And maybe there is a 4th category, a user who is over-scrupulous and
ask permission for things that really don't need permission, things
that would be covered under what is called "nominative use", similar
to "fair use" with copyright.

And then there is the 5th category, users who are asking for
permission, for CD covers, etc.

So for the 1st and 3rd categories, we need a solid statement that we
take trademarks seriously and that explicit permission is requirement
to use them, and give information for how to request that permission.
That is what the pros need to make their requests, and it gives notice
to those who might try to abuse the trademarks,  I think we have that,
both at the ASF website, and on the poding website.

And then the 2nd and 4th category, education is the best tool.

The last category, that is where we need to be careful.  If we give
blanket permission for unrestricted use of logos, then that is an open
door for category 3 users, and removes options for seeking the
discontinuation of their use of our trademarks.  "We're not doing
anything wrong.  The project said we could all use the logo.  They
never said I couldn't use it on my adware/bundle of OpenOffice."

So there is a natural tension between desires to reduce the paperwork
and procedures of permission request tracking and processing, and our
desire to discourage abuse of the trademarks.   Making it easy for
everyone to use the logos also makes it easier for some bad players to
use the logos to confuse our users.

One way of resolving this is to make a clear distinction between
product logos and community logos.  We would have a logo that we and
only we use to mark the origin of our software and our website.  And
that logo would be used nowhere else.  And then we can have distinct
community logos, perhaps thematically linked to the product logo, that
we make available more freely.

-Rob

> captures this information, we could also consider creating a logo usage
> package, include guidance, examples of correct usage, partner guidance and
> the actual logo assets. Everything could be put into a single-source,
> versioned, downloadable package. A partner could download the package, then
> review the guidance and get to work consuming and promoting our product -
> which is the goal.
>
>
>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>> keep that info all in one place.
>>
>> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
>> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
>> you
>> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
>> object as
>> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>> >
>> > --- end of items ---
>> >
>> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
>> various
>> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
>> started,
>> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
>> correctly
>> > aligned before I can complete that.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>> use in certain situations.
>>
>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>> trademark.
>>
>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>> not include our logos.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>> > - -
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
>> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Kevin Grignon
<ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> KG01 - See comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
>> remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>
>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>
>> > Second item, other artwork:
>> >
>> > All artwork in:
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> >
>> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use
>> and
>> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
>> think
>> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>> > and nothing else):
>> >
>>
>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> to use the trademark.
>>
>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>
>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>> to confuse or lure users.
>>
>> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>> >
>> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>>
>> KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused
> an interested party would be. While we can maintain living wiki docs that


Actually, we get many requests, sometimes several a week, per the
requirements of that exact trademark.html page.  Those who deal in
trademarks, at a professional level, know to look for the trademark
page and know what to ask for.  So for those whose business depends on
getting this right, ranging from book publishers, to education
services websites to movie studies (and yes, that has happened) this
information is helpful.

As a 2nd category, the random average user or developer who wants to
promote OpenOffice, they typically don't know or care enough to even
ask permission.  On the other hand, they are probably causing little
harm.  But if they are not looking for permission, then having
detailed pages explaining this stuff probably won't help them.  They
are not finding what they aren't looking for.

And as the 3rd category we have a small number of websites that are
intentionally abusing our trademarks in order to lure users in, to
sell them copies of OpenOffice, in some cases adulterated copies, that
have bundled adware applications.  They are another category that is
not seeking permission to use the trademarks.

And maybe there is a 4th category, a user who is over-scrupulous and
ask permission for things that really don't need permission, things
that would be covered under what is called "nominative use", similar
to "fair use" with copyright.

And then there is the 5th category, users who are asking for
permission, for CD covers, etc.

So for the 1st and 3rd categories, we need a solid statement that we
take trademarks seriously and that explicit permission is requirement
to use them, and give information for how to request that permission.
That is what the pros need to make their requests, and it gives notice
to those who might try to abuse the trademarks,  I think we have that,
both at the ASF website, and on the poding website.

And then the 2nd and 4th category, education is the best tool.

The last category, that is where we need to be careful.  If we give
blanket permission for unrestricted use of logos, then that is an open
door for category 3 users, and removes options for seeking the
discontinuation of their use of our trademarks.  "We're not doing
anything wrong.  The project said we could all use the logo.  They
never said I couldn't use it on my adware/bundle of OpenOffice."

So there is a natural tension between desires to reduce the paperwork
and procedures of permission request tracking and processing, and our
desire to discourage abuse of the trademarks.   Making it easy for
everyone to use the logos also makes it easier for some bad players to
use the logos to confuse our users.

One way of resolving this is to make a clear distinction between
product logos and community logos.  We would have a logo that we and
only we use to mark the origin of our software and our website.  And
that logo would be used nowhere else.  And then we can have distinct
community logos, perhaps thematically linked to the product logo, that
we make available more freely.

-Rob

> captures this information, we could also consider creating a logo usage
> package, include guidance, examples of correct usage, partner guidance and
> the actual logo assets. Everything could be put into a single-source,
> versioned, downloadable package. A partner could download the package, then
> review the guidance and get to work consuming and promoting our product -
> which is the goal.
>
>
>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>> keep that info all in one place.
>>
>> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
>> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
>> you
>> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
>> object as
>> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>> >
>> > --- end of items ---
>> >
>> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
>> various
>> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
>> started,
>> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
>> correctly
>> > aligned before I can complete that.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>> use in certain situations.
>>
>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>> trademark.
>>
>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>> not include our logos.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >
>> > - -
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
>> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:

> KG01 - See comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for
> Trademark
> > > Usage
> > >
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> > >
> > > First item, logos:
> > >
> > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> > Apache
> > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> > >
> > > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html"
> page,
> > > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> > >
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> > >
> > > -or- the older web logo
> > >
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> > >
> > > So, I would like to do a few things:
> > >
> > > - also put
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> > >
> > > in
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> > >
> > > Change
> > >
> > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> > Apache
> > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> > >
> > > -- to --
> > >
> > > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> > Apache
> > > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> > >
> > > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> > >
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> > >
> > > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
> > remove)
> > >
> > > I will also change the logos area in:
> > >
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> > >
> > > and list all possible logos in:
> > >
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> > set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> > graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> > to", is fine.
> >
> > Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> > the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> > And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> > whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> > associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> > product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> > trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
> >
> > ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> > is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> > www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
> >
> > > Second item, other artwork:
> > >
> > > All artwork in:
> > > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> > >
> > > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> > >
> > > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will
> advise
> > > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to
> use
> > and
> > > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
> > think
> > > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual
> logo
> > > and nothing else):
> > >
> >
> > The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> > to use the trademark.
> >
> > I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> > something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> > look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> > for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> > requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> > If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> > probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> > under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
> >
> > I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> > unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> > the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> > lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> > were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> > anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> > that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> > to confuse or lure users.
> >
> > > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify
> an
> > > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> > >
> > > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> > >
> >
> > KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused
> an interested party would be.


yes, it is...I think people want to use some art related stuff from Apache
OpenOffice, don't really understand the licensing/trademarks aspects of it,
and then probably get frustrated trying to deal with a possible permission
process.

I was just trying to make things easier on everyone -- us and them.

The problem is there's 3 different licenses that apply to certain art
objects on our site -- we really can't change that. We need to make an
effort that users understand what these differences are.

These are not trademark issues but license issues.

The trademark business only applies to the logos -- at least I think so,
please correct me if I'm wrong.

The thing is people don't understand the difference. We need to make things
clearer in terms of what they actually need to to do.



> While we can maintain living wiki docs that
> captures this information, we could also consider creating a logo usage
> package, include guidance, examples of correct usage, partner guidance and
> the actual logo assets. Everything could be put into a single-source,
> versioned, downloadable package. A partner could download the package, then
> review the guidance and get to work consuming and promoting our product -
> which is the goal.
>

That's another good idea -- except that they need to ask permission of us
so we can see how the logo is being used.


>
> > Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> > there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
> > other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> > keep that info all in one place.
> >
> > > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want
> to
> > > use (either LGPL or PDL)
> > >
> > > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> > > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
> > you
> > > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
> > > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
> > >
> > > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> > > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
> > object as
> > > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
> > >
> > > --- end of items ---
> > >
> > > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
> > various
> > > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
> > started,
> > > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
> > correctly
> > > aligned before I can complete that.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
> > any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
> > the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
> > from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
> > use in certain situations.
> >
> > Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
> > symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
> > the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
> > produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
> > trademark.
> >
> > Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
> > publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
> > is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
> > ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
> > to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
> > for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
> > indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
> > ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
> > it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
> > templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
> > not include our logos.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > >
> > > - -
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > MzK
> > >
> > > "There's no crying in baseball!"
> > >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
> >
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Kevin Grignon <ke...@gmail.com>.

KG01 - See comments inline.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> > Usage
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
> > First item, logos:
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> >
> > -or- the older web logo
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> >
> > So, I would like to do a few things:
> >
> > - also put
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> >
> > in
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > Change
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > -- to --
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> >
> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
> remove)
> >
> > I will also change the logos area in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > and list all possible logos in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> >
> >
>
> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> to", is fine.
>
> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>
> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>
> > Second item, other artwork:
> >
> > All artwork in:
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> >
> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use
> and
> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
> think
> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
> > and nothing else):
> >
>
> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> to use the trademark.
>
> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>
> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> to confuse or lure users.
>
> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> >
> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
>
> KG01 - This collection of links is confusing to me. Imagine how confused
an interested party would be. While we can maintain living wiki docs that
captures this information, we could also consider creating a logo usage
package, include guidance, examples of correct usage, partner guidance and
the actual logo assets. Everything could be put into a single-source,
versioned, downloadable package. A partner could download the package, then
review the guidance and get to work consuming and promoting our product -
which is the goal.


> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> keep that info all in one place.
>
> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
> you
> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
> object as
> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
> >
> > --- end of items ---
> >
> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
> various
> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
> started,
> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
> correctly
> > aligned before I can complete that.
> >
>
> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
> use in certain situations.
>
> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
> trademark.
>
> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
> not include our logos.
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> > - -
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.


On 06/14/2012 01:53 PM, drew wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
>>>>>> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
>>>>>> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (bottom of back cover :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
>>>>>> as a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
>>>>>> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
>>>>> tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
>>>>> what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
>>>>> the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
>>>>> downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
>>>>> if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
>>>>> not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Expressed another way:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
>>>>> elements that you have reused.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Your rights to your original creation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
>>>>> You determine the license you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
>>>>> of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
>>>>>
>>>>> #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
>>>>> core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
>>>>> giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
>>>>> your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
>>>>> permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
>>>>> the "Get it here!" logo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully this makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well given this response...more questions
>>>>
>>>> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that
>>>> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though
>>>> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing
>>>> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked)
>>>> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission
>>>> because of the logo inclusion?
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Howdy Kay, Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
>>> I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
>>> the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
>>> publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.
>>>
>>> Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
>>> license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.
>>>
>>
>> OK.  I didn't notice the significance of the ND.  That might work.
>> But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the
>> artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc.
>>
>
> Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and
> for the iso image as a whole."
>
> Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about
> the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to
> the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the
> morning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> //drew
>
>
>>> Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
>>> it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
>>> I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
>>> should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
>>> right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
>>> so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
>>> the trademarks with the project directly.
>>>
>>> Least that is how I see it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback,
>>>
>>> //drew
>>>
>>
>
>
Thanks to both of you for all this enlightening information, esp the 
clause about trademarks in ALv2. I'll need to take a closer look at the 
LGPL etc to see how this is covered there. I think I have a much better 
idea of what is actually going on now, and will just drop this thread.

It would be nice to provide our users with a bit more user-friendly 
information so I will think about all this and visit in a few days.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
        -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>


<snip>

> > >>
> >> >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
> >> >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
> >> >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
> >> >>
> >> >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
> >> >>
> >> >> (bottom of back cover :)
> >> >>
> >> >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
> >> >> as a whole.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
> >> >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
> >> > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
> >> > what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
> >> > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
> >> > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
> >> > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
> >> > not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
> >> >
> >> > Expressed another way:
> >> >
> >> > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
> >> >
> >> > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
> >> > elements that you have reused.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Your rights to your original creation.
> >> >
> >> > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
> >> >
> >> > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
> >> > You determine the license you want.
> >> >
> >> > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.
> >> >
> >> > But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
> >> > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
> >> >
> >> > #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
> >> > core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
> >> > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
> >> > your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
> >> > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
> >> > the "Get it here!" logo.
> >> >
> >> > Hopefully this makes sense.
> >> >
> >> > -Rob
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well given this response...more questions
> >>
> >> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that
> >> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though
> >> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing
> >> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked)
> >> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission
> >> because of the logo inclusion?
> >>
> >> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Howdy Kay, Rob
> >
> >
> > Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
> > I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
> > the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
> > publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.
> >
> > Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
> > license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.
> >
> 
> OK.  I didn't notice the significance of the ND.  That might work.
> But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the
> artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc.
> 

Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and
for the iso image as a whole."

Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about
the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to
the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the
morning.

Thanks,

//drew


> > Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
> > it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
> > I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
> > should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
> > right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
> > so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
> > the trademarks with the project directly.
> >
> > Least that is how I see it.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback,
> >
> > //drew
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>>> cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> >>>> Usage
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> First item, logos:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> >>>> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -or- the older web logo
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - also put
>> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >>>>
>> >>>> in
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Change
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- to --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I will also change the logos area in:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and list all possible logos in:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> >>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> >>> to", is fine.
>> >>>
>> >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> >>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> >>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>> >>>
>> >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> >>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>> >>>
>> >>>> Second item, other artwork:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> All artwork in:
>> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>> >>>> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
>> >>>> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
>> >>>> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>> >>>> and nothing else):
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> >>> to use the trademark.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> >>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>> >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> >>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>> >>> to confuse or lure users.
>> >>>
>> >>>> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>> >>>> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>> >>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>> >>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>> >>> keep that info all in one place.
>> >>>
>> >>>> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
>> >>>> use (either LGPL or PDL)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>> >>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
>> >>>> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>> >>>> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>> >>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as
>> >>>> you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --- end of items ---
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various
>> >>>> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
>> >>>> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
>> >>>> aligned before I can complete that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>> >>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>> >>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>> >>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>> >>> use in certain situations.
>> >>>
>> >>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>> >>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>> >>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>> >>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>> >>> trademark.
>> >>>
>> >>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>> >>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>> >>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>> >>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>> >>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>> >>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>> >>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>> >>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>> >>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>> >>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>> >>> not include our logos.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Rob, Kay, et al
>> >>
>> >> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
>> >> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
>> >> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
>> >> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
>> >> groups us however, whenever :)
>> >>
>> >> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
>> >> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace
>> >>
>> >> _but_
>> >>
>> >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
>> >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
>> >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
>> >>
>> >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
>> >>
>> >> (bottom of back cover :)
>> >>
>> >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
>> >> as a whole.
>> >>
>> >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
>> >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think?
>> >>
>> >
>> > The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
>> > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
>> > what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
>> > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
>> > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
>> > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
>> > not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
>> >
>> > Expressed another way:
>> >
>> > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
>> >
>> > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
>> > elements that you have reused.
>> >
>> > 2) Your rights to your original creation.
>> >
>> > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
>> >
>> >
>> > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
>> >
>> > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
>> > You determine the license you want.
>> >
>> > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.
>> >
>> > But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
>> > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
>> >
>> > #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
>> > core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
>> > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
>> > your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
>> > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
>> > the "Get it here!" logo.
>> >
>> > Hopefully this makes sense.
>> >
>> > -Rob
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well given this response...more questions
>>
>> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that
>> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though
>> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing
>> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked)
>> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission
>> because of the logo inclusion?
>>
>> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
>>
>>
>
> Howdy Kay, Rob
>
>
> Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
> I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
> the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
> publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.
>
> Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
> license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.
>

OK.  I didn't notice the significance of the ND.  That might work.
But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the
artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc.

> Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
> it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
> I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
> should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
> right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
> so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
> the trademarks with the project directly.
>
> Least that is how I see it.
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
>
> //drew
>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 
> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> >>>> Usage
> >>>>
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >>>>
> >>>> First item, logos:
> >>>>
> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >>>>
> >>>> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
> >>>> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> >>>>
> >>>> -or- the older web logo
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I would like to do a few things:
> >>>>
> >>>> - also put
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> >>>>
> >>>> in
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >>>>
> >>>> Change
> >>>>
> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >>>>
> >>>> -- to --
> >>>>
> >>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> >>>>
> >>>> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >>>>
> >>>> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
> >>>>
> >>>> I will also change the logos area in:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >>>>
> >>>> and list all possible logos in:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> >>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> >>> to", is fine.
> >>>
> >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> >>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> >>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
> >>>
> >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> >>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
> >>>
> >>>> Second item, other artwork:
> >>>>
> >>>> All artwork in:
> >>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >>>>
> >>>> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> >>>> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
> >>>> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
> >>>> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
> >>>> and nothing else):
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> >>> to use the trademark.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> >>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> >>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> >>> to confuse or lure users.
> >>>
> >>>> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
> >>>> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> >>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
> >>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> >>> keep that info all in one place.
> >>>
> >>>> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
> >>>> use (either LGPL or PDL)
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> >>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
> >>>> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
> >>>> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> >>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as
> >>>> you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- end of items ---
> >>>>
> >>>> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various
> >>>> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
> >>>> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
> >>>> aligned before I can complete that.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
> >>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
> >>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
> >>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
> >>> use in certain situations.
> >>>
> >>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
> >>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
> >>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
> >>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
> >>> trademark.
> >>>
> >>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
> >>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
> >>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
> >>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
> >>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
> >>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
> >>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
> >>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
> >>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
> >>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
> >>> not include our logos.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Rob, Kay, et al
> >>
> >> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
> >> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
> >> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
> >> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
> >> groups us however, whenever :)
> >>
> >> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
> >> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace
> >>
> >> _but_
> >>
> >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
> >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
> >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
> >>
> >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
> >>
> >> (bottom of back cover :)
> >>
> >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
> >> as a whole.
> >>
> >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
> >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >
> > The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
> > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
> > what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
> > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
> > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
> > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
> > not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
> >
> > Expressed another way:
> >
> > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
> >
> > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
> > elements that you have reused.
> >
> > 2) Your rights to your original creation.
> >
> > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
> >
> >
> > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
> >
> > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
> > You determine the license you want.
> >
> > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.
> >
> > But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
> > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
> >
> > #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
> > core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
> > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
> > your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
> > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
> > the "Get it here!" logo.
> >
> > Hopefully this makes sense.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> 
> Well given this response...more questions
> 
> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that 
> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though 
> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing 
> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) 
> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission 
> because of the logo inclusion?
> 
> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
> 
> 

Howdy Kay, Rob


Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.

Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.

Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
the trademarks with the project directly.

Least that is how I see it. 

Thanks for your feedback,

//drew

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for
>>>>> Trademark
>>>>> Usage
>>>>>
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>>>>>
>>>>> First item, logos:
>>>>>
>>>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>>>>> Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>>>>>
>>>>> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html"
>>>>> page,
>>>>> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>>>>>
>>>>> -or- the older web logo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I would like to do a few things:
>>>>>
>>>>> - also put
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>>>>>
>>>>> in
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>>>>>
>>>>> Change
>>>>>
>>>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>>>>> Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>>>>>
>>>>> -- to --
>>>>>
>>>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>>>>> Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>>>>>
>>>>> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>>>>>
>>>>> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
>>>>> remove)
>>>>>
>>>>> I will also change the logos area in:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>>>>>
>>>>> and list all possible logos in:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>>>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>>>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>>>> to", is fine.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>>>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>>>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>>>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>>>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>>>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>>>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>>>
>>>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>>>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>>>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>>>
>>>>> Second item, other artwork:
>>>>>
>>>>> All artwork in:
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>>>>>
>>>>> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will
>>>>> advise
>>>>> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to
>>>>> use and
>>>>> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
>>>>> think
>>>>> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual
>>>>> logo
>>>>> and nothing else):
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>>>> to use the trademark.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>>>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>>>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>>>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>>>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>>>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>>>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>>>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>>>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>>>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>>>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>>>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>>>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>>>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>>>> to confuse or lure users.
>>>>
>>>>> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify
>>>>> an
>>>>> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>>>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>>>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>>>> keep that info all in one place.
>>>>
>>>>> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want
>>>>> to
>>>>> use (either LGPL or PDL)
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>>>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as
>>>>> you
>>>>> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>>>>> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>>>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the
>>>>> object as
>>>>> you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- end of items ---
>>>>>
>>>>> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in
>>>>> various
>>>>> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely
>>>>> started,
>>>>> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements
>>>>> correctly
>>>>> aligned before I can complete that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>>>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>>>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>>>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>>>> use in certain situations.
>>>>
>>>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>>>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>>>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>>>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>>>> trademark.
>>>>
>>>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>>>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>>>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>>>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>>>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>>>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>>>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>>>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>>>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>>>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>>>> not include our logos.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Rob, Kay, et al
>>>
>>> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
>>> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
>>> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
>>> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
>>> groups us however, whenever :)
>>>
>>> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
>>> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace
>>>
>>> _but_
>>>
>>> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
>>> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
>>> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
>>>
>>> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
>>>
>>> (bottom of back cover :)
>>>
>>> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
>>> as a whole.
>>>
>>> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
>>> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
>> tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
>> what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
>> the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
>> downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
>> if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
>> not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
>>
>> Expressed another way:
>>
>> Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
>>
>> 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
>> elements that you have reused.
>>
>> 2) Your rights to your original creation.
>>
>> 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
>>
>>
>> #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
>>
>> #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
>> You determine the license you want.
>>
>> #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that
>> before.
>>
>> But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
>> of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
>>
>> #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
>> core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
>> giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
>> your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
>> permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
>> the "Get it here!" logo.
>>
>> Hopefully this makes sense.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>
> Well given this response...more questions
>
> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that
> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though these
> pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing perhaps for
> modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) that people
> wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission because of the
> logo inclusion?
>

It depends on what the user wants to do with the artwork.  For some
uses, yes, they would need additional permission.  It is hard to speak
about this generically.  It would help to have a specific example to
discuss, so specific artwork and specific things someone wants to do
with the artwork.


> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
>

Not at all.  Take a look, for example, at the clause 6 of ALv2:

"6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the
trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the
Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in
describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the
NOTICE file."

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> //drew
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - -
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>>>>>       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.


On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew<dr...@baseanswers.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>>>> Usage
>>>>
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>>>>
>>>> First item, logos:
>>>>
>>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>>>>
>>>> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>>>> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>>>>
>>>> -or- the older web logo
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>>>>
>>>> So, I would like to do a few things:
>>>>
>>>> - also put
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>>>>
>>>> in
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>>>>
>>>> Change
>>>>
>>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>>>>
>>>> -- to --
>>>>
>>>> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>>>> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>>>>
>>>> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>>>>
>>>> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
>>>>
>>>> I will also change the logos area in:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>>>>
>>>> and list all possible logos in:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>>> to", is fine.
>>>
>>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>>
>>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>>
>>>> Second item, other artwork:
>>>>
>>>> All artwork in:
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>>>>
>>>> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>>>> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
>>>> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
>>>> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>>>> and nothing else):
>>>>
>>>
>>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>>> to use the trademark.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>>> to confuse or lure users.
>>>
>>>> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>>>> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>>> keep that info all in one place.
>>>
>>>> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
>>>> use (either LGPL or PDL)
>>>>
>>>> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>>>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
>>>> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>>>> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>>>>
>>>> (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>>>> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as
>>>> you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>>>>
>>>> --- end of items ---
>>>>
>>>> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various
>>>> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
>>>> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
>>>> aligned before I can complete that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>>> use in certain situations.
>>>
>>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>>> trademark.
>>>
>>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>>> not include our logos.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Rob, Kay, et al
>>
>> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
>> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
>> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
>> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
>> groups us however, whenever :)
>>
>> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
>> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace
>>
>> _but_
>>
>> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
>> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
>> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
>>
>> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
>>
>> (bottom of back cover :)
>>
>> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
>> as a whole.
>>
>> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
>> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
> tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
> what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
> the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
> downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
> if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
> not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
>
> Expressed another way:
>
> Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
>
> 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
> elements that you have reused.
>
> 2) Your rights to your original creation.
>
> 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
>
>
> #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
>
> #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
> You determine the license you want.
>
> #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.
>
> But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
> of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
>
> #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
> core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
> giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
> your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
> permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
> the "Get it here!" logo.
>
> Hopefully this makes sense.
>
> -Rob
>
>

Well given this response...more questions

Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that 
contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though 
these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing 
perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked) 
that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission 
because of the logo inclusion?

This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.


>
>
>
>
>> //drew
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - -
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>>>>        -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
        -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>
>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>
>> > Second item, other artwork:
>> >
>> > All artwork in:
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> >
>> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
>> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
>> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>> > and nothing else):
>> >
>>
>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> to use the trademark.
>>
>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>
>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>> to confuse or lure users.
>>
>> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>> >
>> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>>
>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>> keep that info all in one place.
>>
>> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
>> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
>> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
>> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
>> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>> >
>> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
>> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as
>> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>> >
>> > --- end of items ---
>> >
>> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various
>> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
>> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
>> > aligned before I can complete that.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
>> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
>> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
>> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
>> use in certain situations.
>>
>> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
>> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
>> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
>> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
>> trademark.
>>
>> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
>> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
>> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
>> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
>> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
>> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
>> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
>> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
>> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
>> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
>> not include our logos.
>>
>
> Hi Rob, Kay, et al
>
> I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
> little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
> package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
> want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
> groups us however, whenever :)
>
> So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
> iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace
>
> _but_
>
> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
>
> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
>
> (bottom of back cover :)
>
> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
> as a whole.
>
> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
>
> What do you think?
>

The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
what Hirano-san did a while back.    You are asking permission to use
the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
not be transferred to the 3rd parties.

Expressed another way:

Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:

1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
elements that you have reused.

2) Your rights to your original creation.

3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.


#1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.

#2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
You determine the license you want.

#3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.

But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?

#1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
the "Get it here!" logo.

Hopefully this makes sense.

-Rob






> //drew
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > - -
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > MzK
>> >
>> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
>> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.

On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> > Usage
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
> > First item, logos:
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> >
> > -or- the older web logo
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> >
> > So, I would like to do a few things:
> >
> > - also put
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> >
> > in
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > Change
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > -- to --
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> >
> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
> >
> > I will also change the logos area in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > and list all possible logos in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> >
> >
> 
> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> to", is fine.
> 
> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
> 
> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
> 
> > Second item, other artwork:
> >
> > All artwork in:
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> >
> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
> > and nothing else):
> >
> 
> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> to use the trademark.
> 
> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
> 
> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> to confuse or lure users.
> 
> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> >
> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
> 
> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> keep that info all in one place.
> 
> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
> > like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
> > provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> > (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as
> > you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
> >
> > --- end of items ---
> >
> > We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various
> > forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
> > but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
> > aligned before I can complete that.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
> any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
> the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
> from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
> use in certain situations.
> 
> Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
> symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
> the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
> produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
> trademark.
> 
> Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
> publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
> is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
> ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
> to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
> for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
> indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
> ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
> it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
> templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
> not include our logos.
> 

Hi Rob, Kay, et al

I agree with pretty much of all of how Rob is putting that - about this
little project of mine, case in point. I said that is my goal, a full
package that someone can use to create copies of, for use however they
want, but no derivatives. (BTW yes, of course it's all available for the
groups us however, whenever :)

So, right now actually I have all of the files to generate the little
iso image all laid out, which I could pop up someplace

_but_ 

I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..

http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png

(bottom of back cover :)

so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
as a whole.

I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
(and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.

What do you think?

//drew


> 
> >
> > - -
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "There's no crying in baseball!"
> >       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cc/ ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>
> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> Usage
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>
> First item, logos:
>
> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>
> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>
> -or- the older web logo
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>
> So, I would like to do a few things:
>
> - also put
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>
> in
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>
> Change
>
> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>
> -- to --
>
> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>
> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>
> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
>
> I will also change the logos area in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>
> and list all possible logos in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>
>

I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
to", is fine.

Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.

( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )

> Second item, other artwork:
>
> All artwork in:
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>
> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>
> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
> and nothing else):
>

The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
to use the trademark.

I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.

I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
to confuse or lure users.

> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>
> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>

Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
keep that info all in one place.

> (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
> use (either LGPL or PDL)
>
> (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
> like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
> provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based
>
> (3) If the object is licensed PDL
> (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html), you may modify the object as
> you desire but must make you modification publicly available.
>
> --- end of items ---
>
> We seem to be getting many folks interested in using our artwork in various
> forms lately. We still have the "Distribution FAQ" on cwiki barely started,
> but it would be very helpful if we could get some of the elements correctly
> aligned before I can complete that.
>

I'm not sure we will be able to do much to make the core logos used in
any unrestricted way.   The safer way is to develop new logos (like
the "Get it here!") logo, that are thematically related, but distinct
from the official project logos, and then to promote the new logos for
use in certain situations.

Going back to what a trademark is:  it gives legal protection for
symbols that indicate the source of goods and services.  If we allow
the logo to be used by others for materials that they (not us)
produce, then we can lose any legal protections offered by the
trademark.

Following that idea, for distribution, one thing we could do is
publish our own CD artwork, maybe based on Drew's designs (assuming he
is willing) and then with our official Releases we could include an
ISO image and the artwork.  We could then state that anyone is welcome
to burn the ISO image to CD, unmodified, and distribute, for free or
for charge, CD's with that artwork on it. The trademark use then does
indicate the source of the goods, since it is unmodified AOO, per the
ISO image we created.  This protects the user as well.  It also makes
it easier for the distributor.  If they want to include other files,
templates, etc., then they could include a 2nd CD, but this one would
not include our logos.

-Rob

>
> - -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"