On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 16:42 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially
unmodified version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the
Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can
use the LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example"
seems to accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for:
* Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
* Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"
As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for
"substantially unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even
defending the LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its
use ? the TM policy says it can only be used for "Substantially
unmodified" software too.
Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like
there are a lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for:
* restricting spokespeople to a chosen set
* ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known
* defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be
Then there are two sets of marks:
* The Document Foundation
And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different
policy for these two marks.
Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" -
which incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no
difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a
Which is correct ?
It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the
two. You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos,
image marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different
Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want
different rules to a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really
saying it is ok for someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document
Foundation" - if they use a different font/set of colors / style of
writing ? :-) I hope not.
Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we
should do the same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did)
- I see you replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't
think this makes for a clear, crisp policy.
Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
more period of 24 hours now.
My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than
clearer the more that the pages are edited :-) The original TM
policy, as reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not
I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider
actually what it is we want to achieve with this separation of
different logos / marks; it is -highly- unclear to me.
Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and
minimally - in tight language that can be understood by everyone.
That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not
approve the policy in its current form; sorry.
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