On 8/28/15 8:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > Dennis this is now triple posted including one private list. I > request you no longer contact me directly as I thought I was replying > privately to our prior conversation and would have moderated some of > my language. BTW what I wrote has NOTHING to do with the Incubator. I > am sure the IPMC has zero interest in re-incubating OpenOffice.org. > > Trademarks, legal-discuss tell me if the following idea is crazy. You > can split the thread. Just say which you are replying on.
Which idea? The original thread was (effectively) about trademark policy issues relating to developer-related projects being redistributed by well-known packaging mechanisms, typically in linux distributions. That is an entirely separate issue from Apache OpenOffice related branding questions, especially as how they relate to other similar software providers. > > I'll note that this should go to the AOO dev list soon with an > appropriate formulation as a proposal. That sounds like a good idea. If the AOO community and PMC have some other specific questions about how to write or implement branding policy, please do bring them up separately. - Shane > > Regards, Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 28, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. > > Change this to misused in Linux distributions. > >> How do we find a policy where can get Linux distributions near compliance. >> >> Since LO rebased and declared a new license we can impute how much of that >> is really AL 2 via a diff. If the LO code is a nominal percent Apache OO >> then we say it is "sufficient" to be based on Apache. If they move below >> that percent then they are no longer compliant. >> >> To stay compliant they can contribute upstream and help us have a source >> release that they can remain compliant against. >> >> Essentially we use the trademark as a honey trap to stay relevant. >> >> Purity will never happen. >> >> Anyone that has a distro that is sufficiently close can then get a "powered >> by" use of the mark. If we can't do a binary for a platform then we can >> point users to all of the "powered by" binaries. The SVN model. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 28, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> [Not cross-posting to a private list.] >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> I don't exactly understand what it is expected that trademarks@ would be >>> doing or clarifying with regard to your specific Foo Manchu case. >>> >>> Please explain what you mean by a percentage. >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> PS: How do you see a case where the Manchu project makes nothing more than >>> nominative mentions of Foo and Foo is not used at all in the naming of the >>> Manchu product? Are specific instances of the use of Foo in a manner that >>> would confuse Manchu with Foo what you have in mind for bringing to an >>> Apache Foo PMC? >>> >>> PPS: I assume we are talking about something other than how third parties >>> use and attribute ALv2 licensed code one way or another. I'm not certain >>> how trademark enters there. There is related discussion on legal-discuss, >>> however. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] >>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35 >>> To: general@incubator.apache.org >>> Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com >>> Subject: Re: apache binary distributions >>> >>> Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> (Please note mixed private/public lists) >>>> >>>>> On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >>> [ ... ] >>>>> >>>>> package-name: foo >>>>> description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo. >>>>> Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar. >>>>> Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software >>>>> Foundation. >>> >>> Foo = OpenOffice >>> Manchu = LibreOffice >>> >>> This is the reality in Linuxland without the attribution. This has been >>> going on for sometime. I think since prior to Oracle's grant. >>> >>> Rolling that back should be a goal for the PMC. >>> >>> Maybe we diff the codebases and accept a percentage. This standard might >>> the encourage upstream contribution. >>> >>> I would like to formulate this idea for the AOO dev list. The above has >>> really helped me crystallize what I've been kicking around in my mind for >>> months and months. >>> >>> Thoughts before I take it there? >>> >>> I know I'm not following Shane's thoughts below. OpenOffice is uniquely >>> problematic. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
