Re: Draft: Guidelines for redistributing (an original) Apache OpenOffice with 3rd party bundles (e.g. books or template packages)

[Peter Junge <pe...@gmx.org>]

On 12/31/2012 1:25 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Peter Junge <pe...@gmx.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> from time to time there are requests to bundle OpenOffice with 3rd party
>> products. A typical case is that a publishing house wants to release a
>> commercial box in which they bundle an original version of Apache OpenOffice
>> with a handbook (either printed or electronic) and some goodies like a pack
>> of templates. As I'm expecting such cases will pop-up frequently (mostly at
>> private@, hence they're not too visible here), it would be good to have some
>> guidelines in place. I have drafted some, please review and comment. The
>> result is intended to be submitted as a proposal here and should go on our
>> website later.
>>
>
> You need to review this with Shane as well.  Remember, the PMC does
> not control the OpenOffice trademarks.  Apache does, and Shane has
> delegated authority in these matters.

I'm aware that the PMC is not the relevant authority. But, I'm not 
trying to establish a policy but just issuing some guidelines in order 
to make the PMC's and also Shane's job easier.


>> === Guidelines for redistributing (an original) Apache OpenOffice with 3rd
>> party bundles ===
>>
>> 1) You must solely use an unmodified binary version of Apache OpenOffice
>> that can be downloaded by anyone from
>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html. If you build your own product
>> from the Apache OpenOffice sources, then you must give your product a
>> different name that must not be confused with Apache OpenOffice. Under
>> certain circumstances, you may then use 'Powered by Apache OpenOffice'. For
>> details, please refer:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#poweredby
>>
>
> I think this is mixing up two different things:
>
> 1) Building exactly AOO from the source, with no additional material
> bundled.  This would be a port, like the BSD or Solaris or OS/2 port.
> Are you saying that these  may not be called "Apache OpenOffice"?

No, but my approach will likely cover 90+ of cases for the book market. 
These are just guidelines. The more complicated way would be saying that 
the discriminating factor is if code used for building the product was 
contributed to AOO or not. Product managers at publishing houses may not 
understand this. Let's keep it easy to cover the majority of cases and 
decide on special cases separately.

>
> 2) Distributing AOO bundled with other stuff.  In that case the AOO
> portion may still be called "Apache OpenOffice", of course. But the
> question is what do you call the bundle as a whole?

What you imply is: a publisher releasing a handbook about AOO and 
bundling some templates may call it "Apache OpenOffice for beginners". 
(Similar packages are available for MS Office.) But, as soon as the 
publisher adds the original binaries of AOO as available at our servers 
this title becomes inappropriate?! Being bundled with books can be 
another important distribution channel for AOO. Do we really want to 
inhibit it because of trademark considerations?

>
> IMHO, the "powered by" name was not intended for bundling.  It was
> intended for embedding, when an Apache program was used as a component
> behind the scenes for some processing, e.g., run on the server to
> generate PDF's, etc.  But to have a bundle of AOO + templates or other
> content and call it "Foo Office, Powered by Apache OpenOffice" is a
> big fail, since the product splash screen, the title bar and the about
> box, not to mention the installer, will still all say "Apache
> OpenOffice".

OK.
>
>> 2) You must always use the proper name 'Apache OpenOffice x[.y[.z]]' (e.g.
>> 3.4.1) for our product. IMPORTANT: Do NOT use 'Apache Open Office' or
>> 'Apache OpenOffice.org' or 'OpenOffice' or 'Open Office' or 'OpenOffice.org'
>> etc.
>>
>
> ???  We just said in #2 that "you must give your product a different
> name that must not be confused with Apache OpenOffice".  And now you
> are saying something (what?) must be referred to as the proper name
> "Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1".
>
> This doesn't work well for another reason:  there is nothing that
> requires that someone build a bundle from exactly a released version
> of AOO.  It might not be exactly 3.4.1.  It might be pre 4.0, or 3.4.1
> + fixes.  How exactly it is named may cause or prevent confusing for
> support and bug tracking,

The idea is that such bundles only use official releases unless the 
published convinces the PMC and trademarks that they have a very good 
reason to use something different.

[...]

>
>> 4) If you want to use the Apache OpenOffice logo on your bundle, you must
>> solely use the original, unmodified Apache OpenOffice logo:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/svg/OOo_Website_v2_copy.svg
>>
>
> I would not favor giving any blanket permission to use the primary
> logo.  It should be used rarely, only with explicit permission, and on
> a case-by-case basis.  If the volume of requests is so high that it is
> burdensome to review them all then we should make a special logo just
> for just bundles. But don't give away the crown jewels without review.
>   For example compare the vendors who may use the "Intel Inside" logo
> versus who is permitted to use the "Intel" logo.  You make a special
> logo for bundling.

This isn't an explicit permission. These are just guidelines. I was 
trying to say that we decide everything on a case-by-case basis with 9).

[...]

>> 6) You must make clear with all components of your bundle (e.g. Cover, Box,
>> printed Book, electronic book, CD/DVD etc.) that you are providing an
>> unmodified version of Apache OpenOffice with your bundle. A proper way to do
>> that it adding an informative statement like:
>> ---
>
>
> You are setting conditions here that are beyond ALv2.  We cannot
> require more than the license requires.  The license permits free
> redistribution, original or unmodified.  They are free to call it
> "Apache OpenOffice" if it is in fact Apache OpenOffice.  We have zero
> basis for making any additional demands.

These conditions do not at all apply to AOO in itself but to bundles 
with third party products where publishers asking for permission to use 
a title including "... Apache OpenOffice ..." for the whole lot. Isn't 
the scope clear? Do I need to add a preamble to the guidelines?

>
> The exception would be if this was in return for us offering them
> something beyond what the license gives. For example, in return for
> use of a logo, or in return for listing them on a special "bundles"
> page on the website, we require adherence to these additional
> guidelines.

That wasn't my idea.

>
>> "Includes the original Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 as provided by the Apache
>> Software Foundation under Apache License Version 2 at
>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/".
>> ---
>>
> Again, we cannot demand this.

Why?
>
>> 7) Your setup routine must clearly distinguish between installing Apache
>> OpenOffice and the additional products of your bundle.
>>
>
> We cannot demand this.

Why?
>
>> 8) There may be exceptions to the guidelines as above, but they must be
>> explicitly permitted by the Apache Software Foundation.
>>
>
> Not really, unless we are offering something they want beyond what is
> given by ALv2.

Can bundles be covered by the ALv2? The points you make above imply they 
cannot.

>
>> 9) You must contact the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee at
>> private@openoffice.apache.org before releasing your bundle so our community
>> is able to review it. Please keep in mind that these are just guidelines and
>> granting you the privilege to use 'Apache OpenOffice' with your bundle is at
>> the sole discretion of the Apache Software Foundation on a case by case
>> basis.
>
> IMHO, you are overstating the PMC's control over the use of the name
> "Apache OpenOffice".  See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

OK, I see now that my scope is not clear. The scope are bundles which 
want to use "Apache OpenOffice" as a part of the main title.

>
> I'd refocus this effort on what we, as a project, can do to help
> bundles, and what minimal protections we require to protect the brand
> in return.  For example, we could define a program which bundlers
> could voluntarily adhere to. If they do they are given placement on
> our website and maybe use of a special "Includes Apache OpenOffice"
> logo.  In return they agree to specific trademark acknowledgement
> requirements.

A "Includes Apache OpenOffice" logo is indeed a very good idea.

>
> And finally, let's not forget that the real abuses out there, the ones
> that cause our users real pain, involve distribution of old versions
> of OpenOffice with a "downloader" or "pre-installer" that causes
> bloatware to be installed on the user's system.  Nothing I read above
> deals with that.

This is yet (far) outside of the scope that I was intending.

>
> In any case, thanks for bringing this up. I've brought the topic up
> several times over the last 18 months, with little success.  Maybe
> this time we reach a critical mass of understanding of the issue and
> its complexities.

OK, I will come up with a revision, especially trying to make the scope 
clearer. It may just take some while until I get back. Haven't got too 
much time recently and every time I try to contribute these days 
something at my house breaks. Last weekend the flow heater froze and burst.

Best regards,
Peter

Re: Draft: Guidelines for redistributing (an original) Apache OpenOffice with 3rd party bundles (e.g. books or template packages)

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Peter Junge <pe...@gmx.org> wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 1:25 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Peter Junge <pe...@gmx.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> from time to time there are requests to bundle OpenOffice with 3rd party
>>> products. A typical case is that a publishing house wants to release a
>>> commercial box in which they bundle an original version of Apache
>>> OpenOffice
>>> with a handbook (either printed or electronic) and some goodies like a
>>> pack
>>> of templates. As I'm expecting such cases will pop-up frequently (mostly
>>> at
>>> private@, hence they're not too visible here), it would be good to have
>>> some
>>> guidelines in place. I have drafted some, please review and comment. The
>>> result is intended to be submitted as a proposal here and should go on
>>> our
>>> website later.
>>>
>>
>> You need to review this with Shane as well.  Remember, the PMC does
>> not control the OpenOffice trademarks.  Apache does, and Shane has
>> delegated authority in these matters.
>
>
> I'm aware that the PMC is not the relevant authority. But, I'm not trying to
> establish a policy but just issuing some guidelines in order to make the
> PMC's and also Shane's job easier.
>
>
>
>>> === Guidelines for redistributing (an original) Apache OpenOffice with
>>> 3rd
>>> party bundles ===
>>>
>>> 1) You must solely use an unmodified binary version of Apache OpenOffice
>>> that can be downloaded by anyone from
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/index.html. If you build your own
>>> product
>>> from the Apache OpenOffice sources, then you must give your product a
>>> different name that must not be confused with Apache OpenOffice. Under
>>> certain circumstances, you may then use 'Powered by Apache OpenOffice'.
>>> For
>>> details, please refer:
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#poweredby
>>>
>>
>> I think this is mixing up two different things:
>>
>> 1) Building exactly AOO from the source, with no additional material
>> bundled.  This would be a port, like the BSD or Solaris or OS/2 port.
>> Are you saying that these  may not be called "Apache OpenOffice"?
>
>
> No, but my approach will likely cover 90+ of cases for the book market.
> These are just guidelines. The more complicated way would be saying that the
> discriminating factor is if code used for building the product was
> contributed to AOO or not. Product managers at publishing houses may not
> understand this. Let's keep it easy to cover the majority of cases and
> decide on special cases separately.
>

So maybe that's the confusion.  There is nothing in your guidelines
that says this is restricted to books.  It is called, "Guidelines for
redistributing (an original) Apache OpenOffice with 3rd
party bundles".  A "bundle" is a very wide concept, and could refer
even to a version of AOO that has bundled fonts or extensions but does
not involve a book in any way.

I don't know if you saw this, but Apache already has a set of
trademarks for publishers who want to use ASF-controlled trademarks in
book titles:

https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#booktitle

Do we need more than this?


>
>>
>> 2) Distributing AOO bundled with other stuff.  In that case the AOO
>> portion may still be called "Apache OpenOffice", of course. But the
>> question is what do you call the bundle as a whole?
>
>
> What you imply is: a publisher releasing a handbook about AOO and bundling
> some templates may call it "Apache OpenOffice for beginners". (Similar
> packages are available for MS Office.) But, as soon as the publisher adds
> the original binaries of AOO as available at our servers this title becomes
> inappropriate?! Being bundled with books can be another important
> distribution channel for AOO. Do we really want to inhibit it because of
> trademark considerations?
>

IMHO, including the binaries does not change anything.  We're talking
about the book title.  That is what shows up on the spine of the book,
what shows up in the Amazon listing, etc.  The book's title is what
has advertising relevance.  The accompanied CD does not, since
whatever title is on that is not typically visible to the user until
after purchase.

So the "bundle" of a book with accompanying CD is typically advertised
as the name of the book.  And they could call it "Apache OpenOffice
for Beginners" regardless of whether a CD was included or not.  But
there are possible bundles that do not involve a book at all -- say a
CD including AOO plus templates.  If the vendor wants to call this
"Apache OpenOffice Business Edition" then I assume that this is a
problem.

So again, maybe the issue is that your guidelines did not make it
clear that you were dealing only with books.

>
>>
>> IMHO, the "powered by" name was not intended for bundling.  It was
>> intended for embedding, when an Apache program was used as a component
>> behind the scenes for some processing, e.g., run on the server to
>> generate PDF's, etc.  But to have a bundle of AOO + templates or other
>> content and call it "Foo Office, Powered by Apache OpenOffice" is a
>> big fail, since the product splash screen, the title bar and the about
>> box, not to mention the installer, will still all say "Apache
>> OpenOffice".
>
>
> OK.
>
>>
>>> 2) You must always use the proper name 'Apache OpenOffice x[.y[.z]]'
>>> (e.g.
>>> 3.4.1) for our product. IMPORTANT: Do NOT use 'Apache Open Office' or
>>> 'Apache OpenOffice.org' or 'OpenOffice' or 'Open Office' or
>>> 'OpenOffice.org'
>>> etc.
>>>
>>
>> ???  We just said in #2 that "you must give your product a different
>> name that must not be confused with Apache OpenOffice".  And now you
>> are saying something (what?) must be referred to as the proper name
>> "Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1".
>>
>> This doesn't work well for another reason:  there is nothing that
>> requires that someone build a bundle from exactly a released version
>> of AOO.  It might not be exactly 3.4.1.  It might be pre 4.0, or 3.4.1
>> + fixes.  How exactly it is named may cause or prevent confusing for
>> support and bug tracking,
>
>
> The idea is that such bundles only use official releases unless the
> published convinces the PMC and trademarks that they have a very good reason
> to use something different.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>
>>> 4) If you want to use the Apache OpenOffice logo on your bundle, you must
>>> solely use the original, unmodified Apache OpenOffice logo:
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/images/AOO_logos/svg/OOo_Website_v2_copy.svg
>>>
>>
>> I would not favor giving any blanket permission to use the primary
>> logo.  It should be used rarely, only with explicit permission, and on
>> a case-by-case basis.  If the volume of requests is so high that it is
>> burdensome to review them all then we should make a special logo just
>> for just bundles. But don't give away the crown jewels without review.
>>   For example compare the vendors who may use the "Intel Inside" logo
>> versus who is permitted to use the "Intel" logo.  You make a special
>> logo for bundling.
>
>
> This isn't an explicit permission. These are just guidelines. I was trying
> to say that we decide everything on a case-by-case basis with 9).
>

OK.  Good.


> [...]
>
>
>>> 6) You must make clear with all components of your bundle (e.g. Cover,
>>> Box,
>>> printed Book, electronic book, CD/DVD etc.) that you are providing an
>>> unmodified version of Apache OpenOffice with your bundle. A proper way to
>>> do
>>> that it adding an informative statement like:
>>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>> You are setting conditions here that are beyond ALv2.  We cannot
>> require more than the license requires.  The license permits free
>> redistribution, original or unmodified.  They are free to call it
>> "Apache OpenOffice" if it is in fact Apache OpenOffice.  We have zero
>> basis for making any additional demands.
>
>
> These conditions do not at all apply to AOO in itself but to bundles with
> third party products where publishers asking for permission to use a title
> including "... Apache OpenOffice ..." for the whole lot. Isn't the scope
> clear? Do I need to add a preamble to the guidelines?
>

Again, the ASF already grants permission to use the name in book
titles, provided the use does not claim endorsement or association
with the ASF:  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#booktitle

The thing to note is that a trademark is not the same kind of right as
a copyright or a patent where we can prevent *any* use without
explicit permission.   In general, there is a wide range of 3rd party
uses are are permitted, so long as they do not confuse the consumer as
to the origin of the goods.  So a trademark is really a right not to
have 3rd parties confuse consumers.  So asking for attribution of the
trademark -- that is fair.  But asking for a link back to our website,
that IMHO is not something we can demand, since it goes beyond what is
necessary to prevent confusion.  Of course, it never hurts to ask...

As for the CD media, if it actually contains Apache OpenOffice and is
labeled "Apache OpenOffice" then what is the possible confusion?  The
issue is when something non-AOO is labeled as AOO or something that is
confusingly similar in name.  So the guidelines might be:

1.  If you are distributing AOO unmodified, then there is no problem
calling it Apache OpenOffice, since that is what it is.

2.  If you distributed modified AOO, then call it something else,
perhaps then "Powered by Apache OpenOffice" (though this is rare).

3. If you distributed on the same media AOO (unmodified) plus other
stuff, make it clear to the user that the entire thing is not Apache
OpenOffice.

>
>>
>> The exception would be if this was in return for us offering them
>> something beyond what the license gives. For example, in return for
>> use of a logo, or in return for listing them on a special "bundles"
>> page on the website, we require adherence to these additional
>> guidelines.
>
>
> That wasn't my idea.
>
>
>>
>>> "Includes the original Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 as provided by the Apache
>>> Software Foundation under Apache License Version 2 at
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/download/".
>>> ---
>>>
>> Again, we cannot demand this.
>
>
> Why?
>
>>
>>> 7) Your setup routine must clearly distinguish between installing Apache
>>> OpenOffice and the additional products of your bundle.
>>>
>>
>> We cannot demand this.
>
>
> Why?
>
>>
>>> 8) There may be exceptions to the guidelines as above, but they must be
>>> explicitly permitted by the Apache Software Foundation.
>>>
>>
>> Not really, unless we are offering something they want beyond what is
>> given by ALv2.
>
>
> Can bundles be covered by the ALv2? The points you make above imply they
> cannot.
>


My point is ALv2 fully covers redistribution in identical or modified
form.  But it gives no special permission for trademark user.
However, there is a wide range of permissible use of trademarks --
akin to "fair use" with copyright -- that does not require our
permission.  And then there are permissions that the ASF has already
given for publishers, per the existing ASF page.   We can certainly
give guidelines for uses that go beyond these things, but I don't know
if we want to "take back" permissions already given or set new
requirements for them.

Specific example:  Imagine a book called "Apache OpenOffice for
Beginners".  It puts attribution for the AOO trademark on its
copyright page.  It includes a CD with unmodified AOO 3.4.1.   Aren't
they fully in conformance with existing guidelines?  Isn't it clear
from the existing ASF page that they do not require further permission
from the ASF to do this?


>
>>
>>> 9) You must contact the Apache OpenOffice Project Management Committee at
>>> private@openoffice.apache.org before releasing your bundle so our
>>> community
>>> is able to review it. Please keep in mind that these are just guidelines
>>> and
>>> granting you the privilege to use 'Apache OpenOffice' with your bundle is
>>> at
>>> the sole discretion of the Apache Software Foundation on a case by case
>>> basis.
>>
>>
>> IMHO, you are overstating the PMC's control over the use of the name
>> "Apache OpenOffice".  See:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
>
>
> OK, I see now that my scope is not clear. The scope are bundles which want
> to use "Apache OpenOffice" as a part of the main title.
>
>
>>
>> I'd refocus this effort on what we, as a project, can do to help
>> bundles, and what minimal protections we require to protect the brand
>> in return.  For example, we could define a program which bundlers
>> could voluntarily adhere to. If they do they are given placement on
>> our website and maybe use of a special "Includes Apache OpenOffice"
>> logo.  In return they agree to specific trademark acknowledgement
>> requirements.
>
>
> A "Includes Apache OpenOffice" logo is indeed a very good idea.
>
>
>>
>> And finally, let's not forget that the real abuses out there, the ones
>> that cause our users real pain, involve distribution of old versions
>> of OpenOffice with a "downloader" or "pre-installer" that causes
>> bloatware to be installed on the user's system.  Nothing I read above
>> deals with that.
>
>
> This is yet (far) outside of the scope that I was intending.
>
>
>>
>> In any case, thanks for bringing this up. I've brought the topic up
>> several times over the last 18 months, with little success.  Maybe
>> this time we reach a critical mass of understanding of the issue and
>> its complexities.
>
>
> OK, I will come up with a revision, especially trying to make the scope
> clearer. It may just take some while until I get back. Haven't got too much
> time recently and every time I try to contribute these days something at my
> house breaks. Last weekend the flow heater froze and burst.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter