[steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy

hmm...

a) "Only the logos that bear the exact mention of the software name with
the mention “The Document Foundation” are reserved for the sole and
official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash screens from
software builds compiled by the Document Foundation"

b) "You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to
the following terms):

1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified
form.

"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, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the
bundling of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions)."

So does a packager of LibreOffice, like Red Hat, SuSe, Debian, Ubuntu,
etc and so forth who compiles it themselves for their distro, have to
change the splashscreen away from the default one which has "The
Document Foundation" in it. i.e. a or b ?

C.

Caolan,

I think we got that covered already in the text... Or am I wrong?

Best,

Charles.

The logos that bear the exact mention of
the software name with the mention "The Document Foundation" are
reserved for two purposes:

* the sole and official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash
screens from software builds compiled by the Document Foundation or on
official materials from the legal entity itself

hmm...

a) "Only the logos that bear the exact mention of the software name with
the mention “The Document Foundation” are reserved for the sole and
official use of TDF as an entity, for instance on splash screens from
software builds compiled by the Document Foundation"

b) "You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to
the following terms):

1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified
form.

"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, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the
bundling of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions)."

So does a packager of LibreOffice, like Red Hat, SuSe, Debian, Ubuntu,
etc and so forth who compiles it themselves for their distro, have to
change the splashscreen away from the default one which has "The
Document Foundation" in it. i.e. a or b ?

C.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to

steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org

Problems?

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/

Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/

All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

deleted

Hi,

Has the marketing or Branding team (or reps here) approved of either this
version or the original? Since both have very much the same meanings i think
approval of either would be good enough.

everyone involved should be subscribed to the steering-discuss list, so they can give their comments if they want. :slight_smile:

Florian

Hi :slight_smile:
I think Italo would have alerted us if there was a problem. Or someone else if
he hadn't noticed it.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I thought it was such that the default logos (with TDF on it) could be
used under the "substantially unchanged" concept. But on re-reading, it
reads more like the implication is that it can be called LibreOffice
under the "substantially unchanged" concept, but that death to anyone
using the TDF tagline ?

I'm not super-attached to the TDF tagline for distro/personal builds,
but I am attached to using the default logos, whichever they are, for
distro/personal builds.

C.

Caolan,

Hmm, if that confuses you, it will confuse otgers. Florian, any chance we
may come up with a cleare sentence? (am on my phone on vacations).

Thank you,

Charles.

Caolan,

I think we got that covered already in the text... Or am I wrong?

I thought it was such that the default logos (with TDF on it) could be
used under the "substantially unchanged" concept. But on re-reading, it
reads more like the implication is that it can be called LibreOffice
under the "substantially unchanged" concept, but that death to anyone
using the TDF tagline ?

I'm not super-attached to the TDF tagline for distro/personal builds,
but I am attached to using the default logos, whichever they are, for
distro/personal builds.

C.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to

steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org

Problems?

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/

Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/

All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

deleted

Hi,

Von: "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>

Hmm, if that confuses you, it will confuse otgers.

I htink, what is confusing here is that ...

>
> I'm not super-attached to the TDF tagline for distro/personal builds,
> but I am attached to using the default logos, whichever they are, for
> distro/personal builds.

... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this
was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should
be used for "instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document
Foundation".

Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds
from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people
to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
via TDF resources.

regards,

André

Hi,

... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this
was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should
be used for "instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document
Foundation".

Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds
from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people
to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
via TDF resources.

that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?

Florian

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
Sounds good to me but i'm curious about the Branding Team's thoughts on this.
Italo?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing
however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force
maintainable of duplicate logos, etc.

C.

Hmm I still think our subline would be valuable for gnu/linux distributions.
We may insert our previous language I think.

Charles.

Hi,

... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least

this

was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should
be used for "instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document
Foundation".

Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for

builds

from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell

people

to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
via TDF resources.

that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to

steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org

Problems?

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/

Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/

All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

deleted

Caolan McNamara wrote:

> > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds
> > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people
> > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed
> > via TDF resources.
>
> that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?

Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing
however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force
maintainable of duplicate logos, etc.

It makes the whole thing much more consistent, therefore it makes a
lot of sense to me.

The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo
website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not
permitted, unless permission explicitely granted.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

+1

So, if OpenSUSE wants to use the TDF logo in the distro all they need do
tis ask - but if 3 guys on an IRC channel decide to roll their own Linux
Distro, then on day one it would be the Community Logo.

[Side note - hopefully when future decisions are made to allow
commercial operators to use the TDF mark the community will be involved
in that decision, in some way]

//drew

I'd +1 Thorsten's short summary, but does it work with Debian rules?

Best,

Charles.

Caolan McNamara wrote:

> > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for

builds

> > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell

people

> > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be

distributed

> > via TDF resources.
>
> that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think?

Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing
however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force
maintainable of duplicate logos, etc.

It makes the whole thing much more consistent, therefore it makes a
lot of sense to me.

The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo
website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not
permitted, unless permission explicitely granted.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to

steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org

Problems?

http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/

Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:

http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/

All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

deleted

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
if it could be that simple then it would be easy to give quick answers to
requests. I'm not sure what the relevance of Debian is.

Could there be an agreement now to allow any distro in the top 100 (or just top
50?) at DistroWatch

http://distrowatch.com
to use 'the proper' logos and splash-screen rather than the community versions.
Any other distros that contact TDF could be dealt with one at a time but it
might help to have a blanket agreement covering the most popular ones.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi,

if it could be that simple then it would be easy to give quick answers to
requests. I'm not sure what the relevance of Debian is.

Could there be an agreement now to allow any distro in the top 100 (or just top
50?) at DistroWatch

http://distrowatch.com
to use 'the proper' logos and splash-screen rather than the community versions.
Any other distros that contact TDF could be dealt with one at a time but it
might help to have a blanket agreement covering the most popular ones.

I would not give general permissions. Permissions that are different from the standard policy should always be granted on an individual basis / case-by-case basis.

Florian

+1

It would make sense I suppose, looking at Linux distro's for instance,
to construct a reasonably simple mechanism for non-commercial users to
request the logo - perhaps a web form, the request could be sent to a
mailing list, a standing practice _could_ be to allow use after some
period of days after request assuming no one objects. (just a off the
top of the head thought)

//drew

Hi :slight_smile:
Good point. There are a LOT of distros out there so perhaps it might be best to
save up applications until there is a batch to work through to help with
work-flow. Anyway, there is no point worrying about this unless the TDF
suddenly gets swamped with tons of requests and that would give the batch
anyway! lol

Ok, lets forget this suggestion and get back to what this thread was really
about before i side-tracked it (apols) :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Tom, all!

A quick note ... mis-using the steering-discuss being an SC deputy.

Sounds good to me but i'm curious about the Branding Team's thoughts on this.
Italo?

I'm not Italo, but I'm one of those who (with Bernhard, Nik, Ivan, ...)
developed the today's branding. Personally, I would be happy if we could
ship the non-tagline logo - and add the tagline on demand. This will
make things more simple and even more visually attractive.

When we worked on the motif design, Nik already made a draft how this
could look like:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/b/b3/ScatterInContext_bunch.jpg

So +1 to the proposal.

One thing that - then - needs to be addressed is the todays tagline
logo. Later this year, I'd like to propose a small revision to make
non-tagline and tagline logo more consistent.

Cheers,
Christoph

________________________________

Alright, swap the logos, default to non TDF one.

a) The current with TDF logos are the ones in default_images/brand for
the about box, the splashscreen and the backing window
b) We have a --with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap for custom
splash and about pngs
c) So move the current ones to e.g. a TDF brand dir, grab the non-TDF
pngs from somewhere and stick those into the generic dir
d) Then for all the distro-config/*conf where the vendor is "The
Document Foundation" add --with-intro-bitmap/--with-about-bitmap to
point them to the TDF branded ones

So...

a) Where are the appropriate non-TDF about, intro *and* backing window
images ? Do they exist somewhere already ?
b) Looks like we don't have an option for selecting an alternative set
of backing window pngs (default_images/brand/shell) ? Is there another
way to do that already, or should we re-work and simplify
--with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap to be a single
--with-brand-images which points to a dir that contains a full set of
intro, about and backing window images

C.