Le Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:14 +0000,
Michael Meeks <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit :
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:46 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Please find the more or less final draft of the trademark policy of
the Document Foundation:
We've done some analysis internally on it, and the good news
is that the text looks fairly good.
There is some concern about the lack of clarity on whether
incorporating libreoffice (or other marks) into a domain name
is allowed - this is an area people often want to tread on,
and we should probably directly address it.
Similarly - it does not mention including 'libreoffice' into a
business name - I think we should simply prohibit that.
So I suggest we add a clarification of both of these to the
end of the "Non permitted use section".
"Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name, or business name
without explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited."
That does sound sensible. We should also think about having maybe
Another point is around the licensing of the policy itself; I
suggest we place it under some sort of open license - e.g., creative
commons attribution share-alike, or something like that, so other
projects can freely re-use it. That is relatively easy to do, but I'd
like to get Karen's feedback first.
That's trivial indeed.
Finally - I just realised that I'd like the "substantially
unmodified" clause to include a few more bundling bits: so
"Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code
provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including
but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain
features by default, translations into other languages,
changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system
- distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches)."
+ distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the
+ of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions)
Since that seems like it is something people would want to
call LibreOffice and just extends the "package other translations"
scope to other common things.
So - do people have problems with any of that ?
Not from my side. Here's the feedback I gathered elsewhere (from other
-the substantially unmodified clause was found vague so what you just
proposed above might help.
- there was the question of the clause requesting that any distributor
mentions one can get LibreOffice for free (on our website) and
provide a link to it. The question was about whether we should
request distributors to put that more proeminently. I have to say I
didn't really understand that comment; but the answer was that
Mozilla does not even allow to make a profit from the distribution of
the software on a physical medium (you can charge a fee covering
costs, but not make a profit on it apparently). I think we want to
leave our clause the way it is, it sounds reasonnable.
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy