On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial > reply. > > My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For > example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct > and so I removed it..." >
I thought my response was quite cordial. Sorry if you did not see it that way. Recall I wrote: "Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark registration is explicitly for software, not for a website. So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't want to mess around with trademark fraud." So I acknowledged your good intentions and said "please". After ignoring my two previous objections to the use of (R) for such a link, I think this was quite polite. If I sounded brief, it was because I believed the situation was urgent and that you had already been adequately informed of my concerns. Regards, -Rob > That is all I'm going to say about it for now. > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Messaggio originale ----- >>>> Da: Rob Weir >>> ... >>>>> >>>>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really >>>> urgent please >>>>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: >>>>> >>>>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for >>>> now and we can discuss >>>>> this issue with legal@." >>>> >>>> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did >>>> this **two weeks ago**: >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 >>> >>> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've >>> waited some more minutes. >> >> Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually >> putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us >> in an immediate danger. >> >> What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very >> carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company >> is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone >> sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out >> of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark >> registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but >> the ***very next business day***. >> >> It took some special effort and legal work to get that application >> rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the >> full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks >> wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of >> ignorance. >> >> Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in >> similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for >> doing this. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >>>>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it >>>> again" is NOT acceptable. >>>> >>>> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. >>> >>> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. >>> >>> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to >>> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to >>> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. >>> >>> Pedro.
