[steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy

*** SC Members and their deputies***

Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is
here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy)

Please also make sure you have read the additional material here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy and there:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Resources_for_external_use

I would like to close this vote in about 24 hours from now.

Thank you,

Hi guys,

Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is
here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy)

  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
document:

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:

[snip]
   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].
[/snip]

  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:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy 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 :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile:

  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 (?).

  HTH,

    Michael.

This sentence:

Trademarks cover the following names: "The Document Foundation", and "LibreOffice". "TDF" and "LibO" are not trademarks, they are just acronyms we use for convenience. Every time these acronyms are used in this document, they refer to "The Document Foundation" and/or "LibreOffice".

is inconsistent with this other sentence:

TDF owns a number of trademarks and these include The Document Foundation, TDF, LibreOffice and LibO. As other trademarks are created or registered, this list will be updated.

This second sentence should read:

TDF owns a number of trademarks, and these include The Document Foundation and LibreOffice. As other trademarks are created or registered, this list will be updated.

In addition, in the second part of the document, "TDF Trademarks" has been substituted by "the Marks", and this may lead to confusion. "The Marks" should be replaced by "TDF Trademarks".

Once amended, the document is OK for me.

+1

Hi Charles,

thanks for the effort - besides the stuff already mentioned ... some
less "legal", but rather "understandability" related comments:

      * Understandability: Most of the tdf mail addresses refer to
        mailing lists, but "legal@documentfoundation.org" is "just" a
        normal mail address. This difference might be important for some
        people - would it be helpful to say "... send an email to the
        non-public address legal@documentfoundation.org"?
      * Usability: Most of the text doesn't use wiki capabilities like
        headings or second outline level enumeration (e.g. no TOC is
        added by the wiki that might make finding the desired
        information more quickly).
      * Usability: Once the text is finalized, we may ask to add the
        logo examples - the logo graphics are already in the wiki, so
        why not use them?

Concerning the usability items; I can work on this once the text is
approved ... or (just ping me), I can try to improve things tomorrow
evening - if it is needed before any final approval.

*** SC Members and their deputies***

Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is
here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy)

+1 (having in mind the comments above and below, and by the others)

Please also make sure you have read the additional material here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy and there:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Resources_for_external_use

Another small comment - I've asked on the design list whether "external
use" is a proper name for that. There is an ongoing discussion how to
name that, and whether to separate the different logos for TDF /
community use. So please be aware that we might (ask to) change this
naming in the near future ...

Charles, thanks for your work!

Cheers,
Christoph

Hi Charles (again),

one thing I've noticed after having some hours sleep ... its is rather
about handling than touching the content of the Trademark Policy.

Since the Trademark Policy is something "official" and it might (or: I
hope ...) get translated into various languages and there might be
variances in its meaning, is there any need to highlight that the
English version is the "binding" one?

At least for other topics like the Bylaws, or the Branding Guidelines
this may be assumed - but do we require a more explicit statement here?

Cheers,
Christoph

Hello,

I'll answer everyone in one mail. Please bear on with me:
- changes Italo requested: done.

- changes Michael requested: I tried to clarify and add space in the
  Permitted use section, fixed the missing link, fixed the line break
  and other obvious things. As for the general contradiction between
  the Logo guidelines and the Trademark Policy itself, I inserted
  inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
  version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.
  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 values. Of
  course the right and broad way to discuss them is by using and
  clarifying the notion of trademarks, but the trademark is not a logo
  only (and vice-versa). So I still think it's good to somewhat
  separate them.

- changes requested by Christoph: I added one sentence about the
  english version being the official one. As for usability, please go
  ahead :slight_smile: make sure people understand there's one page dedicated to
  the logos though.

Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
more period of 24 hours now.

Best,
Charles.

Hi Charles, hi all!

- changes requested by Christoph: I added one sentence about the
  english version being the official one. As for usability, please go
  ahead :slight_smile: make sure people understand there's one page dedicated to
  the logos though.

Okay, I had a look (or two) on the pages ...

TRADEMARK POLICY

Fortunately, there seems to be sufficient protection, since I was unable
to edit the Trademark Policy wiki page. Thus, I've edited the content on
my user page that should be (if the changes are perceived as
improvements) copied to the real page. Charles, could you take care of
that, please?

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Temporary_Work_Space#The_Document_Foundation_Trademark_Policy

Changes:
      * Overall: Added some headings to improve the structure of the
        text and to ensure proper TOC creation by the wiki (although
        some changes might appear awkward)
      * Section "Related Information": Added this section (referring to
        Logo Policy, Branding Guidelines) and linked from within the
        text to this section.
      * Section "The Trademarks": Added list of the trademarks to ease
        the understandability --> By the way, the information is
        duplicated in "Purpose"; is that helpful?
      * Overall: Converted the text-only mail address into a "clickable"
        mail address
      * Overall: Changed "hard" formatting to a style that better fits
        to the wiki

LOGO POLICY

I've overhauled the logo policy, although the naming of some items seems
still to be strange (I'd like to have some shorter names like: TDF Logo,
Community Logo - or something like that).

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy

Major Changes:
      * Moved the content to a table
      * Changed the point-of-view from "we" to "TDF", and
        "they/external" to "other" --> Rationale: Most of the people
        will be part of the community, so it would be strange to tell
        them being "external". The "we" for TDF seemed a bit too
        self-centered ... although it is correct from our
        point-of-view :slight_smile:
      * Added "Usage Examples" --> Are these descriptions okay, are more
        important ones missing? I think these examples have great value
        in describing when to use, when to avoid the TDF subline logo.
      * Overall: Improved description of legal mailing list (now:
        "non-public")
      * Overall: Changed "hard" formatting to a style that better fits
        to the wiki

Since there have been major changes, could you please thoroughly check
whether the text still fits to your thoughts and our goals?

Thanks a lot!

Cheers,
Christoph

Hi,

Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or
not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG
with 'registered trademark", while on the trademark policy page it seems
that maybe it is just a "tm" that is appropriate at this time.

Thanks so much, in advance

Drew Jensen

Hi Drew,

Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or
not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG
with 'registered trademark", while on the trademark policy page it seems
that maybe it is just a "tm" that is appropriate at this time.

From a legal point of view, if the trademark is not actually registered
then it can only be "TM" - note here that "filed" is not the same as
registered. Considering that in the US registration takes anything from
12 months to 3 years on average, at least for the US it will have to be
"TM". It is, by the way, an offence to use (R) or registered trademark
in the US if the trademark is not actually registered.

As for other countries, well the European Union trademark registration
proceedings take approximately a year, if there are no setbacks, such as
objections from the Examiner, oppositions by third parties, etc, so
again, one is looking at registration proceedings lasting between 1 to 2
years.

Other countries will have similar time schedules depending on the degree
to which the trademark application is examined. In France, for example,
it can take less than a year, approximately 6 to 8 months if all goes
smoothly.

Suffice it to say that it is unlikely that there are many "registered"
"LibreOffice" trademarks around at the moment, in which case one should
put "TM". The "TM" labelling is only really significant for the US
anyway, nearly all other countries have a system based on first-come,
first-served registration, whereas the US has both a system of
inter-state commerce recognition of use of a trademark, and a federal
registration system.

Alex

Hi,

Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is
here:http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy)

Please also make sure you have read the additional material here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy and there:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Resources_for_external_use

I would like to close this vote in about 24 hours from now.

sorry for jumping in so late - was busy with non-TDF work yesterday, and was ill the day before.

May I propose we start another round on Monday? Christoph's changes still need to be incorporated, and I want to avoid confusion which version we approve now. So, my proposal: Let's work on the last issues over the weekend, incorporate them into the above pages, and then finally vote on Monday for 24 hours - ok?

Florian

Hi,

sorry for jumping in so late - was busy with non-TDF work yesterday, and
was ill the day before.

May I propose we start another round on Monday? Christoph's changes still
need to be incorporated, and I want to avoid confusion which version we
approve now. So, my proposal: Let's work on the last issues over the
weekend, incorporate them into the above pages, and then finally vote on
Monday for 24 hours - ok?

sure.

Best,

Charles.

Hi,

May I propose we start another round on Monday? Christoph's changes still
need to be incorporated, and I want to avoid confusion which version we
approve now. So, my proposal: Let's work on the last issues over the
weekend, incorporate them into the above pages, and then finally vote on
Monday for 24 hours - ok?

sure.

so, Christoph, can you please commit your changes; Charles, can you - after verifying it - start a new voting round on Monday or so?

Thanks,
Florian

The current Logo page currently says:

"Distributors of the substantially unmodified binaries are allowed to
distribute the product, so they distribute it with the TDF subline
inside the product. If you're unsure of what is meant by "substantially
unmodified binaries" please refer to the clause 1 of the Permitted Use
section in the TDF Trademark Policy."

which seems to bring the Logo Policy back into sync with the Trademark
policy, i.e. we don't have to change the splashscreen if we don't
substantially modify the binaries.

Guess should hold off on voting until the final Monday round, but
Trademark and Logo policies are looking reasonable to me.

C.

Hi Florian, Charles, all!

Thank you Florian for stepping in :slight_smile:

so, Christoph, can you please commit your changes; Charles, can you -
after verifying it - start a new voting round on Monday or so?

Done. Revised content is now on the trademark guidelines page:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy

I hope I didn't miss anything ...

Cheers,
Christoph

Hi,

Done. Revised content is now on the trademark guidelines page:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy

I hope I didn't miss anything ...

thanks a lot! If there are no objections, Charles can start the next voting round. :slight_smile:

Anyone who wants to raise concerns, please send them in *now*.

Florian

Thank you Christoph!

And now again, and hopefully for the last time, SC members only,
please cast your vote in the form of +1 or -1 for the approval of the
Trademark Policy.

This ballot shall close tomorrow at 2 pm CET (Berlin/Paris).

Best,

Hi Charles,

  I inserted
  inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
  version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.

  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
    LibreOffice

  Then there are two sets of marks:

  * LibreOffice
  * 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
difference.

  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 values.

  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 ? :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile: The original TM policy, as
reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight.

  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.

  HTH,

    Michael.

Hello Michael,

Hi Charles,

> I inserted
> inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially
> unmodified version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the
> Trademark Policy.

  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
    LibreOffice

  Then there are two sets of marks:

  * LibreOffice
  * 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
difference.

  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
> values.

  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 ? :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile: The original TM
policy, as reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not
watertight.

  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.

  HTH,

    Michael.

Normally I woud probably start to rant but you're outlining something
important here :slight_smile:

I think if you're confused then other people are confused. I think that
the TM policy is trying to address one global situation while keeping
one specific exception (the TDF outline) as a somewhat more restrictive
usage.

The TM policy should be kept as is, probably, but we should come up
with one specific exception for TDF, included right inside the text.
Which means we need to draft one more paragraph into it. What do you
(and the others) think

Hi Michael, Charles, all,

please let me describe how I think it is meant - probably we need to rephrase the Logo policy (but not the Trademark Policy).

As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO) aside for the moment.

It can be fine-tuned later on.

If you want the Logo Policy to become a relevant part, then you should consider to add a link (and/or a one-line description) to the Policies paragraph (merchandise, services). At the moment this paragraph doesn't differ between the different logos.

Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph:

At the moment it reads:
You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites.

Adding "for that purpose" restricts the use of the "internal" logo:

You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics for that purpose from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites.

If you are interested in my perception of the Logo Policy, please read on - even if the topic is tightly connected, it is a different one...

Michael Meeks schrieb:

Hi Charles,

   I inserted
   inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
   version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.

This is a direct reference to the Trademark Policy - I don't know if it is necessary to repeat it here.

The main point for the product is:

When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified".

  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"

It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above:
"Individual community members and other people referring to our product and the community should use the logo without the subline."

  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.

That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here.

The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it contains the "substantially unmodified binaries".

But in the description of this product, references to the community, merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF.

  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
    LibreOffice

You're right: These are parts of the Trademark Policy, but for the first point misinterpretation should be reduced by appliance of the Logo Policy.

  Then there are two sets of marks:

  * LibreOffice
  * The Document Foundation

Right.

  And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for
these two marks.

No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the wordmarks.

  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
difference.

  Which is correct ?

The Trademark Guidelines.

There is no way to use the word "LibreOffice" in a way that is not in agreement with the Trademark Policy.

But the logo to be used for this reference exists in two different versions. One for TDF and community, one for everybody else.

   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 values.

+1

  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 ? :slight_smile: I hope not.

Nobody told so - and I can't read it on the Logo Policy page either.

[...]The original TM policy, as
reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight.

  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.

I don't know if it is necessary to separate official logo usage from "external". Debian tried this by creating different logos (one under proprietary and another under open license), but at least in public the "official" version is scarcely recognized: http://www.debian.org/logos/

In my eyes it should be sufficient to provide guidelines to the logo usage - not only for the proper spacing, colors and so on, but to describe, what we think is necessary to keep a reference to our product and community unmistakably different from our own public appearance.

Best regards

Bernhard