Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi guys,

On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 18:19 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is

        The wiki page appears to be missing a link on 'here' in this sentence:

        "While this document covers the topics related to Trademark
         Policy, you may find more practical information about our logos
         and how to use them here. "

        There is also a line-wrapping issue around the dozens of "Bob"s in the

3. To factually refer to The Document Foundation itself, its products,
or its protocols. For instance, you may use “Bob's Addons for
LibreOffice” or “Bob's forum for LibreOffice” but not “Bob's
LibreOffice”. 4.When referring to LibreOffice

        There should be a new-line / break between these two.

        I'm concerned about the sheer volume of 'Bob' waffle and exemplary
material that got randomly added to the most important clauses 1 to 4.
in the text there. Can you refresh the recolleciton of those ? IMHO less
is often more in legalese. The non-permitted uses are still crisp,
despite a single example at the bottom. Points 3 and 4 were initially:

   3. To factually refer to the [NAME] project itself, its products, or
its protocols.

   4. When referring to [NAME] software that is not substantially
unmodified, to say that the such software is a "derivative of" or "based
on" [NAME].

        I would prefer to separate the examples at the bottom of that section,
if we truly need them (?).

Please also make sure you have read the additional material here: and there:

        Well; having just granted use of "The Document Foundation" mark for
substantially un-modified binaries in the TM policy - we then forbid it
in this (not very tightly written) "Logo Policy" wiki page :-) That
doesn't seem so good to me.

        It looks (to me) as if we need two TM policies, one for "The Document
Foundation" - which is rather more restrictive, and one for
"LibreOffice" which is much less so.

        I'm sorry I hadn't quite got what we were trying to do with this until
today, but it looks a tad odd to say: you can use it, but then you can't
in another page :-)

        Can we not simply subsume the Logo policy into an example of a closer
association than actually exists (point 2 of non-permitted use) and make
it clear that we reserve the TDF Trademark/brand to apply to goods
produced by TDF - and as such cannot be generally used by anyone (?).



--  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.