You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openmeetings.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2012/07/19 20:09:23 UTC
Trademarks
The ASF has a defined trademark policy which all Top Level Projects
are expected to follow. It has recently been pointed out that some
uses of the OpenMeetings marks are not following these policies. Note,
nobody has actually complained about this but it would be nice to see
the PPMC better enforcing their policies.
The trademark policy is at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
The site in question (but it may not be limited to this site) is
http://www.openmeetings.de/
Question regarding how to best comply with the policy can be addressed
to trademarks@apache.org, although your mentors can help in the first
instance.
Thanks,
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Fwd: Trademarks
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Thanks Seba for the inclusion of a clear pointer to the Apache
OpenMeetings podling on your openmeetings.de domain, this is more than
sufficient attribution for the time being. We very much appreciate your
quick action to ensure that consumers and users are clearly informed
about where they can find Apache OpenMeetings software, here at the
ASF's incubator - thanks!
When we have an existing product and brand that is donated to the Apache
Incubator, the ASF understands that there will be a transition period in
your use (i.e. your organization that is donating the code and the brand
to the ASF) during the incubation process. This is expected and
understood.
The primary goal for the ASF's branding team is to ensure that the ASF
has full trademark rights to the "OpenMeetings" name at some point
before the podling graduates. This is required so that we can promote
and defend the brand once it becomes a top level project at Apache.
Given that part of this discussion is about legal matters, I'm going to
follow up in a few days to the PPMC private list and to the privately
archived trademarks@ list, including Seba, so we can organize all the
details.
In the short term Seba, please don't worry - your willingness to work
with us is great, and I'm betting we can make some good suggestions as
to how we can all ensure that users can both find Apache OpenMeetings
software (from the ASF), as well as find all sorts of great services
like hosting and support from your company.
I'd recommend PPMC members read our Corporate Recognition Best
Practices, to get a sense of the kinds of things that podlings/projects
can do on their websites to recognize outside companies that are related
to Apache projects:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking.html
Note that while it's still a DRAFT, the principles will remain the same
- I know we need to provide better explanations and examples.
- Shane Curcuru
VP, Brand Management
The Apache Software Foundation
P.S. I've just come back from OSCON and am exhausted, so will follow up
next week to the PPMC and trademarks@.
On 7/19/2012 12:33 PM, seba.wagner@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *seba.wagner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>*
> <seba.wagner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> Date: 2012/7/19
> Subject: Re: Trademarks
> To: openmeetings-dev@incubator.apache.org
> <ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>
>
> I agree,
>
> it might lead to confusion as soon as a wider audience is looking for
> information about the project they could be confused.
> I've put an info text on the landing page at openmeetings.de
> <http://openmeetings.de> to the project website at the Apache Foundation
> for now.
>
> I will contact the trademark list to ask what I should do further to
> prevent confusion.
>
>
> Sebastian
>
> 2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com
> <ma...@opendirective.com>>
>
> The domain is not really a problem since it predates the projects move
> here. we're not interested in killing off your business ;-) As long as
> the PPMC has no objections to what you are doing there then all is
> good. Things can certainly be improved to ensure any new PPMC members
> not aware of your history with the project do not get confused. There
> a specific domain name guidelines linked from the policy document -
> see http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/domains.html
>
> There hasn't been any specific complaints. This is more of a friendly
> nudge to ensure you fully read and understand the trademark policies
> in order to minimise any chance of complaints.
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 19 July 2012 11:51, seba.wagner@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com> <seba.wagner@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Ross,
> >
> > is the domain name itself an issue or does any of the content at the
> > website violate trademark policies?
> > The website is mine so I can remove any of the content.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Sebastian
> >
> > 2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com
> <ma...@opendirective.com>>
> >
> >> The ASF has a defined trademark policy which all Top Level Projects
> >> are expected to follow. It has recently been pointed out that some
> >> uses of the OpenMeetings marks are not following these policies.
> Note,
> >> nobody has actually complained about this but it would be nice
> to see
> >> the PPMC better enforcing their policies.
> >>
> >> The trademark policy is at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
> >>
> >> The site in question (but it may not be limited to this site) is
> >> http://www.openmeetings.de/
> >>
> >> Question regarding how to best comply with the policy can be
> addressed
> >> to trademarks@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>,
> although your mentors can help in the first
> >> instance.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ross
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> >> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock <https://twitter.com/#%21/dead_lock>
> > http://www.openmeetings.de
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock <https://twitter.com/#%21/dead_lock>
> http://www.openmeetings.de
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock <https://twitter.com/#%21/dead_lock>
> http://www.openmeetings.de
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
Re: Trademarks
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
I agree,
it might lead to confusion as soon as a wider audience is looking for
information about the project they could be confused.
I've put an info text on the landing page at openmeetings.de to the project
website at the Apache Foundation for now.
I will contact the trademark list to ask what I should do further to
prevent confusion.
Sebastian
2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> The domain is not really a problem since it predates the projects move
> here. we're not interested in killing off your business ;-) As long as
> the PPMC has no objections to what you are doing there then all is
> good. Things can certainly be improved to ensure any new PPMC members
> not aware of your history with the project do not get confused. There
> a specific domain name guidelines linked from the policy document -
> see http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/domains.html
>
> There hasn't been any specific complaints. This is more of a friendly
> nudge to ensure you fully read and understand the trademark policies
> in order to minimise any chance of complaints.
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 19 July 2012 11:51, seba.wagner@gmail.com <se...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Ross,
> >
> > is the domain name itself an issue or does any of the content at the
> > website violate trademark policies?
> > The website is mine so I can remove any of the content.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Sebastian
> >
> > 2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> >
> >> The ASF has a defined trademark policy which all Top Level Projects
> >> are expected to follow. It has recently been pointed out that some
> >> uses of the OpenMeetings marks are not following these policies. Note,
> >> nobody has actually complained about this but it would be nice to see
> >> the PPMC better enforcing their policies.
> >>
> >> The trademark policy is at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
> >>
> >> The site in question (but it may not be limited to this site) is
> >> http://www.openmeetings.de/
> >>
> >> Question regarding how to best comply with the policy can be addressed
> >> to trademarks@apache.org, although your mentors can help in the first
> >> instance.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ross
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> >> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Wagner
> > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> > http://www.openmeetings.de
> > http://www.webbase-design.de
> > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> > seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.openmeetings.de
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: Trademarks
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Wow - you guys here are *really* great. The truth is the best
community play is to use project specific domains under PPMC control.
I didn't expect you to just shift it over like this and wasn't asking
for it. However, it is the best result.
This project is very lucky to have a PPMC of this calibre.
Ross
On 20 July 2012 23:40, seba.wagner@gmail.com <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> I was looking for examples but I could not find any Apache "Foo" project
> where a project member or 3th party runs a website under the domain name
> foo.com or foo.de/fr/ru.
> So I moved the website to webbase-design.de now. openmeetings.de just
> contains a redirect/info page.
> We might change that to a valid http-error 301 "moved permanently" to
> ensure search engines find our new website.
>
> Attribution of the website webbase-design.de should go clearly to the
> Apache Project and the "impressum" does indicate who has ownership of the
> trademark "OpenMeetings": http://www.webbase-design.de/impressum/
>
> Sebastian
>
> 2012/7/20 Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>
>
>> Great, Ross, thanks for your clarifications.
>>
>> --
>> With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
>> Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
>> http://dataved.ru/
>> +7 916 562 8095
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler
>> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> > On 19 July 2012 13:18, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Thanks Ross,
>> >> it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not
>> >> yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would
>> >> be simpler to understand
>> >
>> > Absolutely. However the specifics right now are so varied that it is
>> > clear the maintainer of the openmeetings.de site has not read the
>> > trademark policy. For example:
>> >
>> > "On websites, hyperlinks to the relevant project homepage and to the
>> > ASF should be added"
>> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution
>> >
>> > I've not conducted a review of the openmeetings.de site, or of any
>> > other open meetings related site. My goal is not to pick on specific
>> > items on a single page - that would be unfair. My goal is only to
>> > raise awareness of the trademark policy so that people can, I hope,
>> > take appropriate action in their own time.
>> >
>> >> I have investigated the following
>> >> http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22
>> >>
>> >> It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are
>> >> not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases
>> >> are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise.
>> >
>> > Generally speaking if the PPMC is satisfied with any specific use of
>> > their marks then the ASF will be. However, the PPMC needs to know what
>> > is acceptable and what is not. Hence the PPMC members need to know
>> > what the policy is. hence this thread. The issue with trademarks is
>> > that if we don't protect them then they are no longer valid. This
>> > could be damaging to the whole community.
>> >
>> > I'm happy to give you my opinion on each case, but I'm speaking only
>> > as an ASF mentor. I am not a member of the trademarks committee.
>> >
>> >> * We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our
>> >> product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build
>> >> a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly
>> >> speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not
>> >> mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though).
>> >
>> > Strictly speaking it is Apache Openmeetings (incubating) - see
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>> >
>> > However, use in mailing lists etc. is not really the concern here,
>> > it's in press, websites etc. Furthermore, it's only really necessary
>> > on first use, just as the Apache part can be dropped after first use.
>> >
>> >> * We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of
>> >> Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same.
>> >> If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis.
>> >
>> > See above - OpenOffice does, as far as I am aware conform to this policy.
>> >
>> >> * The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch
>> >> for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open
>> >> proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was
>> >> to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's
>> >> sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of
>> >> sponsorship.
>> >
>> > This is perfectly OK as long as the activity is outside of the ASF.
>> > That is it's not the ASF offering these incentives it is some third
>> > party who conforms to the trademark policy in their engagements. The
>> > ASF does not, and never will, pay for software development. Third
>> > parties are free to pay for anything they want.
>> >
>> >> Consider the quote,
>> >> Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software
>> >> Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be
>> >> used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of
>> >> any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind.
>> >>
>> >> This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors
>> >> Apache and some particular Apache products.
>> >>
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/
>> >
>> > Yes, ASF and many organisations sponsor the ASF but they are not
>> > allowed any special rights over our marks as a result. They do not
>> > sponsor our projects, they sponsor the foundation so it can provide
>> > services for *all* our projects not any specific project. Using our
>> > marks in factual statements is always allowed (no policy we write can
>> > change that), so MS can say they sponsor the foundation (fact) but
>> > they cannot say they sponsor Apache Foo since we don't accept
>> > targetted donations for projects.
>> >
>> >> Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers,
>> >> I cannot refer to the Apache project.
>> >
>> > You are raising money for your *developers*. That is fine. You are not
>> > raising money for the *project*.
>> >
>> > So you can say "I will pay developers to work on Apache Foo" but you
>> > can't say "I sponsor Apache Foo".
>> >
>> >> My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here.
>> >
>> > That would be for trademarks@ to do if necessary.
>> >
>> > Ross
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.openmeetings.de
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Trademarks
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross,
I was looking for examples but I could not find any Apache "Foo" project
where a project member or 3th party runs a website under the domain name
foo.com or foo.de/fr/ru.
So I moved the website to webbase-design.de now. openmeetings.de just
contains a redirect/info page.
We might change that to a valid http-error 301 "moved permanently" to
ensure search engines find our new website.
Attribution of the website webbase-design.de should go clearly to the
Apache Project and the "impressum" does indicate who has ownership of the
trademark "OpenMeetings": http://www.webbase-design.de/impressum/
Sebastian
2012/7/20 Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>
> Great, Ross, thanks for your clarifications.
>
> --
> With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
> Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
> http://dataved.ru/
> +7 916 562 8095
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > On 19 July 2012 13:18, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks Ross,
> >> it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not
> >> yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would
> >> be simpler to understand
> >
> > Absolutely. However the specifics right now are so varied that it is
> > clear the maintainer of the openmeetings.de site has not read the
> > trademark policy. For example:
> >
> > "On websites, hyperlinks to the relevant project homepage and to the
> > ASF should be added"
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution
> >
> > I've not conducted a review of the openmeetings.de site, or of any
> > other open meetings related site. My goal is not to pick on specific
> > items on a single page - that would be unfair. My goal is only to
> > raise awareness of the trademark policy so that people can, I hope,
> > take appropriate action in their own time.
> >
> >> I have investigated the following
> >> http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22
> >>
> >> It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are
> >> not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases
> >> are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise.
> >
> > Generally speaking if the PPMC is satisfied with any specific use of
> > their marks then the ASF will be. However, the PPMC needs to know what
> > is acceptable and what is not. Hence the PPMC members need to know
> > what the policy is. hence this thread. The issue with trademarks is
> > that if we don't protect them then they are no longer valid. This
> > could be damaging to the whole community.
> >
> > I'm happy to give you my opinion on each case, but I'm speaking only
> > as an ASF mentor. I am not a member of the trademarks committee.
> >
> >> * We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our
> >> product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build
> >> a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly
> >> speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not
> >> mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though).
> >
> > Strictly speaking it is Apache Openmeetings (incubating) - see
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
> >
> > However, use in mailing lists etc. is not really the concern here,
> > it's in press, websites etc. Furthermore, it's only really necessary
> > on first use, just as the Apache part can be dropped after first use.
> >
> >> * We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of
> >> Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same.
> >> If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis.
> >
> > See above - OpenOffice does, as far as I am aware conform to this policy.
> >
> >> * The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch
> >> for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open
> >> proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was
> >> to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's
> >> sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of
> >> sponsorship.
> >
> > This is perfectly OK as long as the activity is outside of the ASF.
> > That is it's not the ASF offering these incentives it is some third
> > party who conforms to the trademark policy in their engagements. The
> > ASF does not, and never will, pay for software development. Third
> > parties are free to pay for anything they want.
> >
> >> Consider the quote,
> >> Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software
> >> Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be
> >> used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of
> >> any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind.
> >>
> >> This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors
> >> Apache and some particular Apache products.
> >>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/
> >
> > Yes, ASF and many organisations sponsor the ASF but they are not
> > allowed any special rights over our marks as a result. They do not
> > sponsor our projects, they sponsor the foundation so it can provide
> > services for *all* our projects not any specific project. Using our
> > marks in factual statements is always allowed (no policy we write can
> > change that), so MS can say they sponsor the foundation (fact) but
> > they cannot say they sponsor Apache Foo since we don't accept
> > targetted donations for projects.
> >
> >> Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers,
> >> I cannot refer to the Apache project.
> >
> > You are raising money for your *developers*. That is fine. You are not
> > raising money for the *project*.
> >
> > So you can say "I will pay developers to work on Apache Foo" but you
> > can't say "I sponsor Apache Foo".
> >
> >> My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here.
> >
> > That would be for trademarks@ to do if necessary.
> >
> > Ross
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.openmeetings.de
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com
Re: Trademarks
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Great, Ross, thanks for your clarifications.
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 19 July 2012 13:18, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Ross,
>> it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not
>> yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would
>> be simpler to understand
>
> Absolutely. However the specifics right now are so varied that it is
> clear the maintainer of the openmeetings.de site has not read the
> trademark policy. For example:
>
> "On websites, hyperlinks to the relevant project homepage and to the
> ASF should be added"
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution
>
> I've not conducted a review of the openmeetings.de site, or of any
> other open meetings related site. My goal is not to pick on specific
> items on a single page - that would be unfair. My goal is only to
> raise awareness of the trademark policy so that people can, I hope,
> take appropriate action in their own time.
>
>> I have investigated the following
>> http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22
>>
>> It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are
>> not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases
>> are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise.
>
> Generally speaking if the PPMC is satisfied with any specific use of
> their marks then the ASF will be. However, the PPMC needs to know what
> is acceptable and what is not. Hence the PPMC members need to know
> what the policy is. hence this thread. The issue with trademarks is
> that if we don't protect them then they are no longer valid. This
> could be damaging to the whole community.
>
> I'm happy to give you my opinion on each case, but I'm speaking only
> as an ASF mentor. I am not a member of the trademarks committee.
>
>> * We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our
>> product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build
>> a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly
>> speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not
>> mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though).
>
> Strictly speaking it is Apache Openmeetings (incubating) - see
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
>
> However, use in mailing lists etc. is not really the concern here,
> it's in press, websites etc. Furthermore, it's only really necessary
> on first use, just as the Apache part can be dropped after first use.
>
>> * We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of
>> Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same.
>> If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis.
>
> See above - OpenOffice does, as far as I am aware conform to this policy.
>
>> * The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch
>> for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open
>> proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was
>> to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's
>> sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of
>> sponsorship.
>
> This is perfectly OK as long as the activity is outside of the ASF.
> That is it's not the ASF offering these incentives it is some third
> party who conforms to the trademark policy in their engagements. The
> ASF does not, and never will, pay for software development. Third
> parties are free to pay for anything they want.
>
>> Consider the quote,
>> Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software
>> Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be
>> used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of
>> any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind.
>>
>> This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors
>> Apache and some particular Apache products.
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/
>
> Yes, ASF and many organisations sponsor the ASF but they are not
> allowed any special rights over our marks as a result. They do not
> sponsor our projects, they sponsor the foundation so it can provide
> services for *all* our projects not any specific project. Using our
> marks in factual statements is always allowed (no policy we write can
> change that), so MS can say they sponsor the foundation (fact) but
> they cannot say they sponsor Apache Foo since we don't accept
> targetted donations for projects.
>
>> Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers,
>> I cannot refer to the Apache project.
>
> You are raising money for your *developers*. That is fine. You are not
> raising money for the *project*.
>
> So you can say "I will pay developers to work on Apache Foo" but you
> can't say "I sponsor Apache Foo".
>
>> My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here.
>
> That would be for trademarks@ to do if necessary.
>
> Ross
Re: Trademarks
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 19 July 2012 13:18, Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Ross,
> it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not
> yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would
> be simpler to understand
Absolutely. However the specifics right now are so varied that it is
clear the maintainer of the openmeetings.de site has not read the
trademark policy. For example:
"On websites, hyperlinks to the relevant project homepage and to the
ASF should be added"
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#attribution
I've not conducted a review of the openmeetings.de site, or of any
other open meetings related site. My goal is not to pick on specific
items on a single page - that would be unfair. My goal is only to
raise awareness of the trademark policy so that people can, I hope,
take appropriate action in their own time.
> I have investigated the following
> http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22
>
> It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are
> not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases
> are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise.
Generally speaking if the PPMC is satisfied with any specific use of
their marks then the ASF will be. However, the PPMC needs to know what
is acceptable and what is not. Hence the PPMC members need to know
what the policy is. hence this thread. The issue with trademarks is
that if we don't protect them then they are no longer valid. This
could be damaging to the whole community.
I'm happy to give you my opinion on each case, but I'm speaking only
as an ASF mentor. I am not a member of the trademarks committee.
> * We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our
> product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build
> a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly
> speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not
> mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though).
Strictly speaking it is Apache Openmeetings (incubating) - see
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
However, use in mailing lists etc. is not really the concern here,
it's in press, websites etc. Furthermore, it's only really necessary
on first use, just as the Apache part can be dropped after first use.
> * We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of
> Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same.
> If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis.
See above - OpenOffice does, as far as I am aware conform to this policy.
> * The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch
> for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open
> proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was
> to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's
> sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of
> sponsorship.
This is perfectly OK as long as the activity is outside of the ASF.
That is it's not the ASF offering these incentives it is some third
party who conforms to the trademark policy in their engagements. The
ASF does not, and never will, pay for software development. Third
parties are free to pay for anything they want.
> Consider the quote,
> Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software
> Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be
> used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of
> any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind.
>
> This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors
> Apache and some particular Apache products.
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/
Yes, ASF and many organisations sponsor the ASF but they are not
allowed any special rights over our marks as a result. They do not
sponsor our projects, they sponsor the foundation so it can provide
services for *all* our projects not any specific project. Using our
marks in factual statements is always allowed (no policy we write can
change that), so MS can say they sponsor the foundation (fact) but
they cannot say they sponsor Apache Foo since we don't accept
targetted donations for projects.
> Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers,
> I cannot refer to the Apache project.
You are raising money for your *developers*. That is fine. You are not
raising money for the *project*.
So you can say "I will pay developers to work on Apache Foo" but you
can't say "I sponsor Apache Foo".
> My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here.
That would be for trademarks@ to do if necessary.
Ross
Re: Trademarks
Posted by Alexei Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Ross,
it would help if particular usages in questions (even if they are not
yet complaints) are discussed. We are not lawyers, and examples would
be simpler to understand
My internal policy was never to speak from the role of ASF, sometimes
speak from the role of PPMC. We use a completely different trademark
"Телесовещания" in Russia for any commercial activity.
I hoped that was sufficient.
I have investigated the following
http://www.google.ru/search?q=%22apache%20openmeetings%22
It shows there are few cases we used Apache Openmeetings, which are
not covered by examples from the policy. I believe thefollowing cases
are fair use, maybe we should avoid some of them. Please advise.
* We commnicated to other open source communities adressing our
product as Apache Openmeetings (e.g. jitsi, red5) and trying to build
a better ecosystem for us. This is mostly the only case when I openly
speak from the face of PPMC outside of Apache mail lists (not
mentioning Apache organization PPMC details though).
* We use Apache Openmeetings instead of "Openmeetings subproject of
Apache Incubator" instead. That's too long. Openoffice does the same.
If "incubating" is important, we can use it on regular basis.
* The commercial entity offered small incentives to prepare any patch
for "Apache Openmeetings" on a developer blog. That was an open
proposal. Google does mostly the same thing in GSoC. Also the goal was
to strengthen community, not to solve the business tasks. That's
sponsorship, and write now we (as a project) don't have a lot of
sponsorship.
Consider the quote,
Our marks must not be used to disparage the Apache Software
Foundation, our projects, members, sponsors, or communities, nor be
used in any way to imply ownership, endorsement, or **sponsorship** of
any ASF-related project or initiative of any kind.
This statement I fail to understand. AFAIK, Microsoft openly sponsors
Apache and some particular Apache products.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/microsoft-to-sponsor-of-the-apache-software-foundation/
Taking the statement literally, when I raise money for our developers,
I cannot refer to the Apache project.
My take on that is to clarify the trademark policy here. It's ok for
any person or entity to sponsor anything he likes and write press
releases he wants to. Would it be sufficient to mention that someone
sponsors "developers of Apache Openmeetings" or "the project based on
Apache Openmeetings" instead of "Apache Openmeetings"?
* Employment advertisement mentoned Apache Openmeetings project.
--
With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,
http://dataved.ru/
+7 916 562 8095
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> The domain is not really a problem since it predates the projects move
> here. we're not interested in killing off your business ;-) As long as
> the PPMC has no objections to what you are doing there then all is
> good. Things can certainly be improved to ensure any new PPMC members
> not aware of your history with the project do not get confused. There
> a specific domain name guidelines linked from the policy document -
> see http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/domains.html
>
> There hasn't been any specific complaints. This is more of a friendly
> nudge to ensure you fully read and understand the trademark policies
> in order to minimise any chance of complaints.
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 19 July 2012 11:51, seba.wagner@gmail.com <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> is the domain name itself an issue or does any of the content at the
>> website violate trademark policies?
>> The website is mine so I can remove any of the content.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Sebastian
>>
>> 2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>>
>>> The ASF has a defined trademark policy which all Top Level Projects
>>> are expected to follow. It has recently been pointed out that some
>>> uses of the OpenMeetings marks are not following these policies. Note,
>>> nobody has actually complained about this but it would be nice to see
>>> the PPMC better enforcing their policies.
>>>
>>> The trademark policy is at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>>
>>> The site in question (but it may not be limited to this site) is
>>> http://www.openmeetings.de/
>>>
>>> Question regarding how to best comply with the policy can be addressed
>>> to trademarks@apache.org, although your mentors can help in the first
>>> instance.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ross
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Wagner
>> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
>> http://www.openmeetings.de
>> http://www.webbase-design.de
>> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
>> seba.wagner@gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Trademarks
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
The domain is not really a problem since it predates the projects move
here. we're not interested in killing off your business ;-) As long as
the PPMC has no objections to what you are doing there then all is
good. Things can certainly be improved to ensure any new PPMC members
not aware of your history with the project do not get confused. There
a specific domain name guidelines linked from the policy document -
see http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/domains.html
There hasn't been any specific complaints. This is more of a friendly
nudge to ensure you fully read and understand the trademark policies
in order to minimise any chance of complaints.
Ross
On 19 July 2012 11:51, seba.wagner@gmail.com <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> is the domain name itself an issue or does any of the content at the
> website violate trademark policies?
> The website is mine so I can remove any of the content.
>
> Thanks!
> Sebastian
>
> 2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
>
>> The ASF has a defined trademark policy which all Top Level Projects
>> are expected to follow. It has recently been pointed out that some
>> uses of the OpenMeetings marks are not following these policies. Note,
>> nobody has actually complained about this but it would be nice to see
>> the PPMC better enforcing their policies.
>>
>> The trademark policy is at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>>
>> The site in question (but it may not be limited to this site) is
>> http://www.openmeetings.de/
>>
>> Question regarding how to best comply with the policy can be addressed
>> to trademarks@apache.org, although your mentors can help in the first
>> instance.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ross
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Wagner
> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
> http://www.openmeetings.de
> http://www.webbase-design.de
> http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
> seba.wagner@gmail.com
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Trademarks
Posted by "seba.wagner@gmail.com" <se...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross,
is the domain name itself an issue or does any of the content at the
website violate trademark policies?
The website is mine so I can remove any of the content.
Thanks!
Sebastian
2012/7/19 Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> The ASF has a defined trademark policy which all Top Level Projects
> are expected to follow. It has recently been pointed out that some
> uses of the OpenMeetings marks are not following these policies. Note,
> nobody has actually complained about this but it would be nice to see
> the PPMC better enforcing their policies.
>
> The trademark policy is at: http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>
> The site in question (but it may not be limited to this site) is
> http://www.openmeetings.de/
>
> Question regarding how to best comply with the policy can be addressed
> to trademarks@apache.org, although your mentors can help in the first
> instance.
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
--
Sebastian Wagner
https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock
http://www.openmeetings.de
http://www.webbase-design.de
http://www.wagner-sebastian.com
seba.wagner@gmail.com