incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:46:29 GMT
On 8/28/15 8:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Dennis this is now triple posted including one private list. I
> request you no longer contact me directly as I thought I was replying
> privately to our prior conversation and would have moderated some of
> my language. BTW what I wrote has NOTHING to do with the Incubator. I
> am sure the IPMC has zero interest in re-incubating OpenOffice.org.
> 
> Trademarks, legal-discuss tell me if the following idea is crazy. You
> can split the thread. Just say which you are replying on.

Which idea?  The original thread was (effectively) about trademark
policy issues relating to developer-related projects being redistributed
by well-known packaging mechanisms, typically in linux distributions.
That is an entirely separate issue from Apache OpenOffice related
branding questions, especially as how they relate to other similar
software providers.

> 
> I'll note that this should go to the AOO dev list soon with an
> appropriate formulation as a proposal.

That sounds like a good idea.  If the AOO community and PMC have some
other specific questions about how to write or implement branding
policy, please do bring them up separately.

- Shane

> 
> Regards, Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 28, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice.
> 
> Change this to misused in Linux distributions.
> 
>> 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 <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
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 [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net] 
>>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: trademarks@apache.org; stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
>>> 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 <asf@shanecurcuru.org> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message