incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:21:17 GMT
Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. How do we find a policy where can get Linux distributions
near compliance.

Since LO rebased and declared a new license we can impute how much of that is really AL 2
via a diff. If the LO code is a nominal percent Apache OO then we say it is "sufficient" to
be based on Apache. If they move below that percent then they are no longer compliant.

To stay compliant they can contribute upstream and help us have a source release that they
can remain compliant against.

Essentially we use the trademark as a honey trap to stay relevant.

Purity will never happen.

Anyone that has a distro that is sufficiently close can then get a "powered by" use of the
mark. If we can't do a binary for a platform then we can point users to all of the "powered
by" binaries. The SVN model.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:
> [Not cross-posting to a private list.]
> Dave,
> I don't exactly understand what it is expected that trademarks@ would be doing or clarifying
with regard to your specific Foo Manchu case.
> Please explain what you mean by a percentage.
> - Dennis
> PS: How do you see a case where the Manchu project makes nothing more than nominative
mentions of Foo and Foo is not used at all in the naming of the Manchu product?  Are specific
instances of the use of Foo in a manner that would confuse Manchu with Foo what you have in
mind for bringing to an Apache Foo PMC?
> PPS: I assume we are talking about something other than how third parties use and attribute
ALv2 licensed code one way or another.  I'm not certain how trademark enters there.  There
is related discussion on legal-discuss, however.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [] 
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35
> To:
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
> Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:
>> (Please note mixed private/public lists)
>>> On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> package-name: foo
>>> description: The Manchu team's packaging based on Apache Foo.
>>> Apache Foo is a framework for doing bar.
>>> Apache, Apache Foo and Foo are trademarks of the Apache Software
>>> Foundation.
> Foo = OpenOffice
> Manchu = LibreOffice
> This is the reality in Linuxland without the attribution. This has been going on for
sometime. I think since prior to Oracle's grant.
> Rolling that back should be a goal for the PMC.
> Maybe we diff the codebases and accept a percentage. This standard might the encourage
upstream contribution.
> I would like to formulate this idea for the AOO dev list. The above has really helped
me crystallize what I've been kicking around in my mind for months and months.
> Thoughts before I take it there?
> I know I'm not following Shane's thoughts below. OpenOffice is uniquely problematic.
> Regards,
> Dave
> [ ... ]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message