Use of Subversion name/logo.

[kf...@collab.net]

CollabNet recently got an inquiry from someone regarding the use of
the Subversion name and logo.  Below is the response we sent.  We'd
like to run it by the dev@ list, in case anyone has comments.

Now, before a million "I am not a lawyer, but..." reactions come in:

Yes, we know about trademark law :-).  The real issue here is not
trademarks, but rather the bad publicity that would accrue to someone
who misused the name or logo, because the community would jump all
over them.  So we tried to clarify to this fellow what is and isn't
community-accepted behavior w.r.t. the name and logo.

In other words, I'm not posting here to ask a legal question, but a
social one: Do people think our response expressed the appropriate
sentiment?

Thanks,
-Karl

Re: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[kf...@collab.net]

Bruce Elrick <br...@elrick.ca> writes:
> Yes, it did express an appropriate sentiment.  One small thing though.
> What if they distribute a modified version of Subversion but also
> choose to actively link to the Tigris site?  Could they say something
> like "Built on top of <link>" where the link is a Subversion logo?  Or
> imagine some verbage that makes it clear that the Subversion
> development community is separate from them.
>
> Or should they only use non-image links to Tigris if they develop a
> modified Subversion?

I think clarity and lack of confusion are the right guidelines.  One
would have to look at the web page to be sure, but yes, in principle
it's fine for some to use the logo/name as long as it's clearly
associated with something that actually *is* Subversion, not with some
other thing.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[Bruce Elrick <br...@elrick.ca>]

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>CollabNet recently got an inquiry from someone regarding the use of
>the Subversion name and logo.  Below is the response we sent.  We'd
>like to run it by the dev@ list, in case anyone has comments.
>
>Now, before a million "I am not a lawyer, but..." reactions come in:
>
>Yes, we know about trademark law :-).  The real issue here is not
>trademarks, but rather the bad publicity that would accrue to someone
>who misused the name or logo, because the community would jump all
>over them.  So we tried to clarify to this fellow what is and isn't
>community-accepted behavior w.r.t. the name and logo.
>
>In other words, I'm not posting here to ask a legal question, but a
>social one: Do people think our response expressed the appropriate
>sentiment?
>
>  
>
Yes, it did express an appropriate sentiment.  One small thing though.  
What if they distribute a modified version of Subversion but also choose 
to actively link to the Tigris site?  Could they say something like 
"Built on top of <link>" where the link is a Subversion logo?  Or 
imagine some verbage that makes it clear that the Subversion development 
community is separate from them.

Or should they only use non-image links to Tigris if they develop a 
modified Subversion?

Cheers...
Bruce

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> What do you mean by "modification"? What about a Linux distribution which 
> ships a slightly edited version (some extra patch, some tweaking to defaults, 
> etc)? Will you ask Debian to rename its packages to something which rimes 
> with subversion?

For what it's worth, the Apache httpd developers went through a period of 
time where people kept filing bugs and complaining about the debian 
tarball that was not the stock httpd, but httpd plus a bunch of other 
patches and modules that was not very well put together.  That packaging
made Apache look bad, and IMHO yeah they should have called it something 
else.  I don't know if this is still the case, but just "some extra patch, 
some tweaking to defaults" is often not harmless.  Clearly if the SVN 
project puts together its own .debs, the chances of a similar problem 
plummet.

 	Brian

Re: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[kf...@collab.net]

Nicolás Lichtmaier <ni...@panoptico.reloco.com.ar> writes:
> What do you mean by "modification"? What about a Linux distribution
> which ships a slightly edited version (some extra patch, some tweaking
> to defaults, etc)? Will you ask Debian to rename its packages to
> something which rimes with subversion?

Good questions.

No, trivial modifications are not the issue.  We just didn't want our
response to be verbose, so we left that as a judgement call.
Obviously, if you just tweak some defaults or something, that's still
Subversion.  On the other hand, say, SVK is not Subversion, although
it is built on top of Subversion.

It would be nice if there were some way to define automatic rules for
this, but of course that's impossible.  Human judgement is the only
way to go, and there's not much point trying to anticipate all the
complexities that might arise.  Better to handle them as they come, if
they come.

-Karl


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[Nicolás Lichtmaier <ni...@panoptico.reloco.com.ar>]

>If you are using/distributing Subversion in an unmodified form, then
>there is no problem with you using the Subversion name or logo. If,
>however, you have modified the Subversion code, then we ask that you not
>use the name or logo because that would dilute the Subversion identity
>and introduce confusion into the community. 
>  
>

What do you mean by "modification"? What about a Linux distribution 
which ships a slightly edited version (some extra patch, some tweaking 
to defaults, etc)? Will you ask Debian to rename its packages to 
something which rimes with subversion?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On Monday, January 31, 2005 4:01 PM -0600 kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> In other words, I'm not posting here to ask a legal question, but a
> social one: Do people think our response expressed the appropriate
> sentiment?

I think CollabNet's response is exactly what we want to say.  =)

Thanks.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

RE: Use of Subversion name/logo.

[Brass Tilde <br...@insightbb.com>]

> In other words, I'm not posting here to ask a legal question, 
> but a social one: Do people think our response expressed the 
> appropriate sentiment?

Speaking as someone outside of the subversion dev group, were I the person
who posed that question, I would expected that exact response.  



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org