openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:12:27 GMT

On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>>> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
>>> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
>>> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
>>> / advisable to do in this special case.  That conversation could impact /
>>> inform the naming strategy for various parts of the project and I think it
>>> should happen soon.
>> Yes, please.
> I'll forward the request.
> As a general rule, it is generally best to start discussions such as
> this with one or more specific proposals.  Spending time discussing
> options that will ultimately be rejected by the community serves
> no-one.  My read is that there are people here who are against any
> proposal that includes .org; and that there are people here who are
> against any proposal that does NOT include .org.  This needs to be
> resolved by the PPMC.

How are these for questions:

Are there trademark or brand dilution issues with "Apache™OpenOffice" (project) in conjunction
with "™" (product)?

The two would be tied together with the feather and the seagulls with comparatively similar
banners and footers.

Are we allowed to call a product "™" or must it be "Apache ...." whether or
not there is a huge retraining of a huge market to the new name?

>> Should the discussion also include the issue of whether it is permissible to host
extensions and templates with all kinds of licenses on an http://* domain?
It happens now.
> There are two parts to this.  The first part is whether or not it is
> legal to do so.  The second part is whether or not ASF policy would
> allow such.  To date we have never approved such.  A concrete example
> to illustrate the difference between the two: it would be 100% legal
> for us to host and distribute code licensed under the GPL on ASF
> infrastructure, but to date we have consistently declined to do so.
> The only thing I will note is that your question is subtly different
> than the one I answered.  You asked a question about a domain that
> ultimately will be owned by the ASF.  I answered a question as to what
> could be hosted on ASF infrastructure.  The question as to whether
> those two questions are equivalent fundamentally is a policy question.
> Off the top of my head: solving this will ultimately require at least
> two parts: (1) finding somebody willing to host the extensions and
> templates, and (2) a clear way of distinguishing these portions of the
> site from those portions hosted by the ASF.  Even with these parts
> addressed, there may be liability questions that we need to resolve.
> That portion will definitely require input from ASF Counsel.

(1) An external host like OSUOSL.

(2) A third set of banners and footers distinguishing this third type of sight - "the extension

Perhaps the TDF would be willing to share an extension and template database and then only
publish the FSF compatible licenses on their extension/template site?

Perhaps this database would have matrices that validate an extension or template's compatibility
with each of the codebases and versions including other downstreams than and


>> Best Regards,
>> Dave
>>> D
>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>>>> Yes, exactly!
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users
instead of asking
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> deeply involved people on this list, having very
>>>> interests in
>>>>>>>>>> one or the other direction.
>>>>>>>>>> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing
>>>>>>>>> While that sounds good, I'm not sure it's the Apache
way and I'd
>>>> welcome a comment from one of the mentors.
>>>>>>>> See Daneese Cooper's emails.
>>>>>>> Did you have a specific one in mind? Naturally I read everything
>>>> writes, but so far I have not seen her comment on the issue of whether and
>>>> how market research over-rides the interests of Apache members.
>>>>>> Sorry, I am out of pocket and this thread is so long. Basically she
>>>> talking about consulting one of the ASF's attorney's regarding the names
>>>> brand dilution issues from a legal standpoint.
>>>>> You are likely referring to this post then:
>>>>>> I hadn't gotten to market research. I'm focused on migration and
>>>> websites - all names are possible right now and in the future. I don't want
>>>> to tie the branding too tightly in the web design. The Apache CMS will allow
>>>> us to isolate these elements.
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>> - Sam Ruby

View raw message