Good morning, DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. On 11.12.23 10:27, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2023-12-11 08:58, ddemaio openSUSE wrote:
On 2023-12-09 09:52, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2023-12-08 10:18, Douglas DeMaio wrote:
Have a look at every single reddit, telegram, twitter, or matrix discussion on the topic and you will find words from others than myself also either echoing similar concerns or just outright disliking the idea of changing the logo. I find this latest email from you to be obscenely patronising and unbecoming of an openSUSE Board member who is meant to represent the wishes of the Project as a whole, and especially it's voting membership.
Please explain to me the difference between acting as a board member vs acting as a community member? I certainly don't speak on behalf of the board with this.
If the suggestion is that my position within the project infringes too much or carries too much influence on this decision, let the marketing team from Telegram drive it. I'll certainly take a backseat to the process and discussion going forward.
As a Board Member, you are responsible for managing the projects Trademark Guidelines
True.
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines
This is _the_ document which facilitates any use of the openSUSE Trademarks, including by the Project, any derivatives, and all of us regular contributing members.
True. But it doesn't define the agreement between SUSE company and openSUSE project nor does it state the relationship or shows any documents/written agreements between the board and SUSE.
Any exceptions to the guidelines are only allowed after explicit permission provided by the Board, which you are part of.
True. Easy, you write a mail to the board.
Any changes to these Trademark Guidelines can only be accomplished after negotiations with SUSE, as the actual owners of the openSUSE Marks.
Really? Where is this written? Might the community see the paperwork between SUSE and openSUSE about trademark agreements? Does it include the Artwork/Logo explicitly? Please be transparent on this one.
One of the primary reasons the SUSE appointed Chairperson to the Board carries veto power is to ensure nothing slips through the cracks between the Board's execution of the Trademark Guidelines and SUSE's interests as owners of the Marks.
True is - SUSE is the owner of the Trademark openSUSE. But at least for the German Trademark register, it is only registered as "Wortmarke" (wording trademark) called openSUSE see [1] I refer to my DISCLAIMER again, but as far as I could research, there is no such thing as a "Bildmarke" (picture trademark) for openSUSE - means there is no trademark of any Logo that SUSE holds for openSUSE - that's why I asked for the paperwork between SUSE and the openSUSE project. Maybe there is a definition how the wording trademark is allowed to use, maybe there is a defined logo as well. But without knowing the details, it is all a big MAYBE. In fact, if there is only a wording trademark and the project is allowed to use this by the trademark guidelines. Than the Board can decide - together with all community members - to change the Logo of the project at any time. It has nothing to do with any trademark violations than. [1] https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/registerhabm?AKZ=004946729
Changing the Project's logo WILL require changes to the above guidelines, either to include the new logo as a new trademark (hence my questions about whether SUSE is interlocked on that matter), or to fundamentally change the relationship between SUSE, openSUSE, and the openSUSE Marks.
I question this, because there seems to be no SUSE-owned trademark for any artwork relating to openSUSE - there seems to be only a Wortmarke.
For example, if the new logo is not trademarked, the openSUSE project will be effectively operating under an altered logo using the registered openSUSE name.
Correct, same as now. Because no logo is trademarked atm.
Such behaviour would normally be prohibited under the trademark guidelines. Therefore I assume the Board will need to grant an exception to the openSUSE project to use/misuse the registered trademarks in this way. Even if the new logo does get trademarked, that will likely take years, requiring exceptional authorisation under the Trademark Guidelines meanwhile, again granted by the Board, which you are part of.
Lot's of assumptions here.
Therefore I think it's impossible to untangle "Doug the community member" and "Doug the executor of openSUSE's Trademark Guidelines" (aka Board Member).
Well, it's still one and the same person. So no. Doesn't work, sorry.
If you feel you are not not driving this as a member of the Board, then my point remains and is amplified.
Where is the paperwork amplifying your point?
I think Gerald needs to be involved at this point in his capacity as Chairperson and make sure that openSUSE is not putting the integrity of our Trademarks at risk. I think we need a firm commitment from SUSE to support, fund, and legally make real, any decision the community makes on this topic. In fact I think we needed that commitment before running ahead with any poll, but that's water under the bridge now.
Sure let's even blow up the topic and involve SUSE lawyers. Honestly, if the project does a voting - and I don't say this voting was done perfect - as we heard a lot of criticism already - and the community decides on a new Logo. Than the board should follow that will and adapt the Trademark guidelines. Of course the board has to keep that aligned with whatever paperwork with SUSE exists about trademark usage - BUT I guess SUSE likes openSUSE as a project and as a community, because that is what all products are built upon. So what you state here is a quite theoretical approach, that SUSE would like to sue or punish the openSUSE project, for choosing a new logo. I don't see a world, where SUSE Lawyers are willing to destroy their own community project, but hey - just my 2 cents. Best regards -- Thorsten Bro <tbro@opensuse.org> - Member of openSUSE VideoTeam - https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Video