On 7 February 2013 13:46, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:26 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 7 February 2013 13:20, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >> >> Rob Weir wrote: > >> >>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this > installed > >> >>> anything but OpenOffice: > >> >>> sudo yum install openoffice.org > >> >> > >> >> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed > and > >> I > >> >> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks. > >> >> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but > just a > >> >> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages > ready. > >> >> > >> > > >> > We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they > were > >> > hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name > in > >> > the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it > >> > because we had no updated version in place with the latest security > >> > fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version > and > >> > will provide future versions. > >> > > >> > >> It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by > >> this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get > >> something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't > >> offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles > >> with Pepsi. > >> > > If it is so classic, then for sure the ASF laywers could inform Fedora > > about the problem, and ask them to correct it, independently of whether > or > > not AOO is distribtuted. I assume that since they are the distributors > they > > need to make sure that their contributors uses valid trademarks. > > > > This might be a problem on other distros as well. > > > > Or is life not as simple as I think ? > > > > I wouldn't start with the lawyers. But we could start by expressing > concern. > I meant informing our laywers, so they are aware of the problem....I think they would be good at helping us expressing concern in the right tone, and then they are involved.
> > Another option is to give them written permission to use the trademark > for that limited purpose. > > But the dangerous thing is to let someone use the trademark in an > improper way and then do nothing. That is how one can lose a > trademark. > I agree with you, and advice strongly against doing that, now that we are aware of it. Several trademark cases have been lost in EU, because the companies using the trademark had proof that the trademark holder had knowledge about the usage over longer time. The court simply judged, that since the trademark holder "did not take action" the companies using the trademark had earned the right to use it. We also have to carefull with "limited purpose", because if it is accepted on one platform, it will be hard to deny it on other platforms, and we would problaly loose a legal battle. but thats just my 2ct > > -Rob > > > rgds > > Jan I > > > >> > >> > And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see > >> > why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice. > >> > > >> > Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the > >> > soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client > >> > applications. > >> > > >> > The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why > >> > should we change them? > >> > > >> > It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up > >> > what belongs to OpenOffice. > >> > > >> > Juergen > >> > > >> > > >> >
