We had a couple of discussions in the past about how to improve the openSUSE trademark guidelines (see e.g. http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines or https://features.opensuse.org/311039). One of the main issues with the current guidelines is that it's very strict about derivatives, and doesn't easily allow people using openSUSE as a base for their own systems, to keep a visible association with openSUSE.
So attached is a proposal how to adapt the trademark guidelines and provide a better solution to this issue. It also contains a few smaller clarifications. It's based on the input I was able to gather from the Wiki, openFATE, mailing lists and some personal feedback. It's a draft, so feedback is welcome.
The central change is to allow people to create variants of openSUSE and use a "Based on openSUSE" branding under more liberal conditions than now. We would provide a specific branding for that, which keeps the relation to openSUSE, but is done in a way to not be confused with the branding of the official openSUSE distribution. Technically this would be a set of branding packages, which can be used instead of the default branding of the official distribution.
Please let me know, if there is additional feedback on the proposed changes, so we can incorporate that, and then move forward with getting the needed approvals to officially adopt the improved guidelines. In parallel to that we can look into doing the proposed branding packages.
Attached is the proposed text for the revised guidelines, and the diff to the current official version.
On 2011-02-28 Cornelius wrote:
We had a couple of discussions in the past about how to improve the openSUSE trademark guidelines (see e.g. http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines or https://features.opensuse.org/311039). One of the main issues with the current guidelines is that it's very strict about derivatives, and doesn't easily allow people using openSUSE as a base for their own systems, to keep a visible association with openSUSE.
So attached is a proposal how to adapt the trademark guidelines and provide a better solution to this issue. It also contains a few smaller clarifications. It's based on the input I was able to gather from the Wiki, openFATE, mailing lists and some personal feedback. It's a draft, so feedback is welcome.
The only feedback I have is: great work! I love the clarifications on permitted usage of the brand (eg t-shirts, mugs etc for non-commercial use is allowed) and the whole "we provide 'based on openSUSE' branding packages" thing rocks of course. It makes creating a openSUSE deriviate much easier.
The central change is to allow people to create variants of openSUSE and use a "Based on openSUSE" branding under more liberal conditions than now. We would provide a specific branding for that, which keeps the relation to openSUSE, but is done in a way to not be confused with the branding of the official openSUSE distribution. Technically this would be a set of branding packages, which can be used instead of the default branding of the official distribution.
Please let me know, if there is additional feedback on the proposed changes, so we can incorporate that, and then move forward with getting the needed approvals to officially adopt the improved guidelines. In parallel to that we can look into doing the proposed branding packages.
Attached is the proposed text for the revised guidelines, and the diff to the current official version.
I like this very much. At first I was thinking ugh, another baseless arbitrary set of rules, but after reading it is a clear document to explain to the average person how to respect the openSUSE marks.
Whereas most trademark use documentation reads as an erosion of fair use, I very much like your section on fair use.
Hye,
I thinks it's a very good step forward, especially te branding packages. It's what I was waiting for.
Just a note about that part:
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). =====
Does it mean dat any Magazine that makes a review on the last openSUSE version (I don't speek of a special magazine with a CD inside) should ask the permission before writing it? Is the publication the magazine itself (in that case if they do the cover they should ask permission) or an article (in that case I think it goes a bit to far, at least for the use of the brand name)? Shouldn't it be clarified?
Regards,
Jean
2011/3/4 Andrew Joakimsen joakimsen@gmail.com
I like this very much. At first I was thinking ugh, another baseless arbitrary set of rules, but after reading it is a clear document to explain to the average person how to respect the openSUSE marks.
Whereas most trademark use documentation reads as an erosion of fair use, I very much like your section on fair use.
-- Med Vennlig Hilsen,
A. Helge Joakimsen
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 04 March 2011 11:19:38 Jean Cayron wrote:
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). =====
Does it mean dat any Magazine that makes a review on the last openSUSE version (I don't speek of a special magazine with a CD inside) should ask the permission before writing it? Is the publication the magazine itself (in that case if they do the cover they should ask permission) or an article (in that case I think it goes a bit to far, at least for the use of the brand name)? Shouldn't it be clarified?
This is not meant for reviews, but if the name of the magazine itself is using the term "openSUSE", so for example, if you want to publish a magazine, which is called the "openSUSE magazine", you need to ask for permission first.
I thought that "use openSUSE trademark in the title of a publication" clearly expresses that. If I'm wrong here, do you have a suggestion how to make the text more clearer?
Le 07/03/2011 21:05, Cornelius Schumacher a écrit :
I thought that "use openSUSE trademark in the title of a publication" clearly expresses that. If I'm wrong here, do you have a suggestion how to make the text more clearer?
a "publication" can be a magazine, a news paper, but also an article inside, like "the new openSUSE 11.4" in a blog post
I'm not good enough in english to give a solution
jdd
On Mar 07, 11 21:05:31 +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Friday 04 March 2011 11:19:38 Jean Cayron wrote:
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). =====
I'd suggest to say 'name' instead of 'title' here. Maybe that makes it clearer. Giving examples 'such as a book or magazin' is very helpful to learn what is included. Why not also give an example of what is not included. Something like this: 'You can use the openSUSE Mark in e.g. a title of review inside a magazine'
The general idea we should convey is this:
If a publication clearly talks about openSUSE in third person, it's fine. If a publication can be understood to represent, contain, be part of openSUSE, then they need approval.
'you should seek' is not really compulsory, is it? -> 'you need'
I thought that "use openSUSE trademark in the title of a publication" clearly expresses that.
What a publication exactly is, is not always clear.
Say you have an online forum, and attract readers by saying
'openSUSE 11.4 is out! We'll show you around, click here for tips and tricks'
in huge letters on your landing page. You might argure, this is only the title of one of the articles in a weekly magazine... But openSUSE might argue, that you misuse a brand name in order raise your hit counts.
cheers, JW-
Le 07/03/2011 22:06, Juergen Weigert a écrit :
If a publication can be understood to represent, contain, be part of openSUSE, then they need approval.
well... approval by whom?
I made tutorials for openSUSE, they are named "openSUSE Video", I also wrote openSUSE multimedia team article on the wiki (like many others do).
of course these videos are published on the opensuse.blip.tv account, but also on my own account (and on many social medias)
nobody was here to say "go on". By the way I worked with jos on the subject, but when I asked for approval, he was busy elsewhere (poor man, probably one of the most busy atm :-)
such answer have to be done fast.
jdd
On Mar 07, 11 22:16:18 +0100, jdd wrote:
Le 07/03/2011 22:06, Juergen Weigert a écrit :
If a publication can be understood to represent, contain, be part of openSUSE, then they need approval.
well... approval by whom?
The easy answer: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines ... seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below ... The contact info says permission@novell.com -- This would go to the board, I assume?
I made tutorials for openSUSE, they are named "openSUSE Video", I also wrote openSUSE multimedia team article on the wiki (like many others do).
of course these videos are published on the opensuse.blip.tv account, but also on my own account (and on many social medias)
nobody was here to say "go on".
Actually a very good point. Trandemark law usually works the other way round. It does not expect everybody to ask for permission, but it is expected that trademark owners actively enforce their marks.
- This is to first of all have well defined and published Rules. - Second we (the board?, legal team?) need to review your usage of our Marks and compare with our rules. - As long as nobody says 'stop', there is no point in waiting for a 'go on' - But if you 'go on', and feel unsure, you *should* ask for a review.
If we (openSUSE) consistently do the wrong thing, and just ignore possible issues, our Marks will get diluted, less worth.
By the way I worked with jos on the subject, but when I asked for approval, he was busy elsewhere (poor man, probably one of the most busy atm :-)
That happens. Please file a bug in the category 'suse linux legal issues' - that helps to keep track of open issues.
such answer have to be done fast.
I agree. As soon as proper guidelines are in place, we can try to be fast :-)
cheers, JW-
Le 07/03/2011 23:03, Juergen Weigert a écrit :
The easy answer: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines ... seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below ... The contact info says permission@novell.com -- This would go to the board, I assume?
clearly not... the board is not Novell. It will go to the board only if Novell say so.
- This is to first of all have well defined and published Rules.
- Second we (the board?, legal team?) need to review your usage of our Marks and compare with our rules.
- As long as nobody says 'stop', there is no point in waiting for a 'go on'
- But if you 'go on', and feel unsure, you *should* ask for a review.
I like this way.
Please file a bug in the category 'suse linux legal issues' - that helps to keep track of open issues.
assigned to whom? you?
jdd
Le 07/03/2011 23:17, jdd a écrit :
Le 07/03/2011 23:03, Juergen Weigert a écrit :
Please file a bug in the category 'suse linux legal issues' - that helps to keep track of open issues.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677565
I'm very new on this kind of bug :-). I didn't see any "legal" topic
jdd
On Monday, March 07, 2011 23:03:45 Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Mar 07, 11 22:16:18 +0100, jdd wrote:
Le 07/03/2011 22:06, Juergen Weigert a écrit :
If a publication can be understood to represent, contain, be part of openSUSE, then they need approval.
well... approval by whom?
The easy answer: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Trademark_guidelines ... seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below ... The contact info says permission@novell.com -- This would go to the board, I assume?
Yes, it ends with the board.
Andreas
I also think that "name" of a publication is far more clearer. And the examples of Jurgen are good as well.
Regards,
Jean
2011/3/7 Juergen Weigert jw@suse.de:
On Mar 07, 11 21:05:31 +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Friday 04 March 2011 11:19:38 Jean Cayron wrote:
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). =====
I'd suggest to say 'name' instead of 'title' here. Maybe that makes it clearer. Giving examples 'such as a book or magazin' is very helpful to learn what is included. Why not also give an example of what is not included. Something like this: 'You can use the openSUSE Mark in e.g. a title of review inside a magazine'
The general idea we should convey is this:
If a publication clearly talks about openSUSE in third person, it's fine. If a publication can be understood to represent, contain, be part of openSUSE, then they need approval.
'you should seek' is not really compulsory, is it? -> 'you need'
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Jean Cayron jean.cayron@gmail.com wrote:
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). =====
Does it mean dat any Magazine that makes a review on the last openSUSE version (I don't speek of a special magazine with a CD inside) should ask the permission before writing it? Is the publication the magazine itself (in that case if they do the cover they should ask permission) or an article (in that case I think it goes a bit to far, at least for the use of the brand name)? Shouldn't it be clarified?
Regards,
NO, this is really very clear. the TITLE means the name of the publication itself, for example, "Linux Magazine". So you can't publish "The openSUSE Magazine", or "LIZARD NEWS" with the -subtitle- "The openSUSE News Blog" or "The Daily openSUSEer" without asking permission.
For a magazine to put "openSUSE Reviewed" on their front page does not require permission. This is describing content and is not the title of the publication.
The difference between title and content is clear; subtitle can be a little trickier (ie, if they put "The openSUSE Issue" under the title, that could possibly be regarded as a subtitle, so a slightly grey area, but let's not be too silly in trying to cover every single eventuality).
cheers
Helen
2011/3/9 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
NO, this is really very clear. the TITLE means the name of the publication itself, for example, "Linux Magazine".
As it's so clear, why do people like me ask it? The title of a publication can be the title of the article of the review inside Linux Magazine or the title of the blogpost. One does not call the title of a post or article "name of the post/article" but well "title". So it's well confusing.
A publication can be anything made available to the public, including electronic publishing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication)
While a title is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/title): 3.The name of a book, film, musical piece, painting, or other work of art. 4.A publication. 5.A written title, credit, or caption shown with a film, video, or performance (usually titles pl). 6.The subject of a writing; a short phrase that summarizes the entire topic.
And a name is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/name): 1.Any word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing.
If one will use that word "title", a short example should be given. Also can a publication be many things.
Regards,
Jean
2 things are taken in care while framing the trademark policies ( I saw while looking at other foundation trademark usage policy)
1. The trademark usage guildelines should be flexible enough so that everyone can use it. 2. It should not derrogate the brand name 3.Some like Python also distinguish between free usage and commercial usage as in commercial usage require permissions.
References http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#guidelines http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/trademark.html http://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php http://kb.askmonty.org/v/trademark-policy
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Jean Cayron jean.cayron@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/9 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
NO, this is really very clear. the TITLE means the name of the publication itself, for example, "Linux Magazine".
As it's so clear, why do people like me ask it? The title of a publication can be the title of the article of the review inside Linux Magazine or the title of the blogpost. One does not call the title of a post or article "name of the post/article" but well "title". So it's well confusing.
A publication can be anything made available to the public, including electronic publishing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication)
While a title is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/title): 3.The name of a book, film, musical piece, painting, or other work of art. 4.A publication. 5.A written title, credit, or caption shown with a film, video, or performance (usually titles pl). 6.The subject of a writing; a short phrase that summarizes the entire topic.
And a name is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/name): 1.Any word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing.
If one will use that word "title", a short example should be given. Also can a publication be many things.
Regards,
Jean
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Jean Cayron jean.cayron@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/9 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
As it's so clear, why do people like me ask it? The title of a publication can be the title of the article of the review inside Linux Magazine or the title of the blogpost. One does not call the title of a post or article "name of the post/article" but well "title". So it's well confusing.
A publication can be anything made available to the public, including electronic publishing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication)
While a title is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/title): 3.The name of a book, film, musical piece, painting, or other work of art. 4.A publication. 5.A written title, credit, or caption shown with a film, video, or performance (usually titles pl). 6.The subject of a writing; a short phrase that summarizes the entire topic.
And a name is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/name): 1.Any word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing.
If one will use that word "title", a short example should be given. Also can a publication be many things.
Regards,
Jean
Jean, you could say that of almost any word you might choose to use, and by explaining every word in detail, the document becomes unreadable. The more specific you get, the more problems can be created by ommission, too. A somewhat broad definition covers all eventualities.
Frankly, in common, standard English usage, the expression "Title of a publication" is extremely clear and few people will misunderstand it.
A blog post has a title, but it is a post, not a publication. The entire blog is the publication.
A magazine article has a title, but it is not a publication. The magazine is the publication.
The definition needs to be in good plain english, not written in words of one syllable.
best,
Helen
Helen,
I just give my point of view. Maybe you are correct. I agree it must be straigtforward and in good plain english but don't look down on non native speaker, sorry if we speek with words of one syllabe. They'll be the ones who will misunderstood it. And openSUSE is an international project.
But I suppose this kind of question should be solved by a lawyer and not by geeks sinds these are a copyright terms.
So I will not argue anymore on this.
Regards,
Jean
2011/3/10 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Jean Cayron jean.cayron@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/9 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
As it's so clear, why do people like me ask it? The title of a publication can be the title of the article of the review inside Linux Magazine or the title of the blogpost. One does not call the title of a post or article "name of the post/article" but well "title". So it's well confusing.
A publication can be anything made available to the public, including electronic publishing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication)
While a title is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/title): 3.The name of a book, film, musical piece, painting, or other work of art. 4.A publication. 5.A written title, credit, or caption shown with a film, video, or performance (usually titles pl). 6.The subject of a writing; a short phrase that summarizes the entire topic.
And a name is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/name): 1.Any word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing.
If one will use that word "title", a short example should be given. Also can a publication be many things.
Regards,
Jean
Jean, you could say that of almost any word you might choose to use, and by explaining every word in detail, the document becomes unreadable. The more specific you get, the more problems can be created by ommission, too. A somewhat broad definition covers all eventualities.
Frankly, in common, standard English usage, the expression "Title of a publication" is extremely clear and few people will misunderstand it.
A blog post has a title, but it is a post, not a publication. The entire blog is the publication.
A magazine article has a title, but it is not a publication. The magazine is the publication.
The definition needs to be in good plain english, not written in words of one syllable.
best,
Helen
-- IRC: helen_au helen.south@opensuse.org helensouth.com
On 2/28/2011 at 03:55 AM, in message 201102281155.02471.cschum@suse.de,
Cornelius Schumacher cschum@suse.de wrote:
Attached is the proposed text for the revised guidelines, and the diff to the current official version.
Cornelius, There's been a lot postings since Feb 28th. I'm not sure what changes have been made to the document. Would you supply a new revision and diff?
Thanks,
Alan Clark
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 00:15:28 Alan Clark wrote:
Cornelius, There's been a lot postings since Feb 28th. I'm not sure what changes have been made to the document. Would you supply a new revision and diff?
Yes, I'll send a new revision later this week.
Jean, my apologies, it was not my intention to imply that your english (or that of any other non native speaker) is poor, far from it. It's just that there is a tendency among us to dissect things, and argue fine points or "split hairs" as the expression goes. (and in fact, your English is very good and so I thought you were just 'splitting hairs' yourself.) I think sometimes we want language to be like code, but it isn't, and trying to make it as unequivocal as code makes documents unreadable.
If you look up any word, you can find many meanings - it's a bit like trying to rely on Google translate. But usually the correct meaning is clear from context and 'standard useage', and in this case it is straightforward. I appreciate that this might create issues for some non native speakers, but an accurate translation should fix any ambiguities.
Again, my apologies, I should not be so terse.
regards,
Helen
On Monday 07 March 2011 22:06:25 Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Mar 07, 11 21:05:31 +0100, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Friday 04 March 2011 11:19:38 Jean Cayron wrote:
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). =====
I'd suggest to say 'name' instead of 'title' here. Maybe that makes it clearer. Giving examples 'such as a book or magazin' is very helpful to learn what is included. Why not also give an example of what is not included. Something like this: 'You can use the openSUSE Mark in e.g. a title of review inside a magazine'
The general idea we should convey is this:
If a publication clearly talks about openSUSE in third person, it's fine. If a publication can be understood to represent, contain, be part of openSUSE, then they need approval.
'you should seek' is not really compulsory, is it? -> 'you need'
These are good suggestions. I think they resolve the problem. I'll incorporate them in the draft and send another revision of the proposal.
Apologies for commenting so late in the piece, but I wanted to raise a couple of small points, for what it's worth -
1. "We are pleased to permit you to link to opensuse.org from your web site"
Do people need permission to link to a website? I've never heard of that before. Permission to use an openSUSE graphic to do so, sure, but to actually link? I feel it sounds rather self-important.
2. Please do not create mock or parody products with names based on the openSUSE Marks. Also, please be aware that, in our opinion, it is not "fair use" to use the openSUSE Marks in a manner that disparages openSUSE technology or the openSUSE Project.
I'm pretty sure that there is no legal leg to stand on in regards to a genuine parody. "Please do not create mock or parody products"? I can't help thinking this is an invitation to create a lime-green distribution called monoSUZY :)
I'm also a little concerned about the 'in our opinion' regarding disparagement, since the only opinion that matters is the court's, which I expect have a list of very specific definitions of what constitutes fair use and disparagement and what doesn't.
cheers
Helen
Helen,
No problem, I'm not angry. In any case, that point is not en essential issue. I generally agree to your point of using proper English as I'm also everytime angry when I see the level of language used by some people in my language. It's just that some time the same thing can be said in several ways, still being right. That's the richness of our languages all engineers and coders won't change it.
As Descartes used to say: "Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément" (In modern English it would be "Wat is well understood is said clairly end the words to say it come easily").
Regards,
Jean
2011/3/15 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
Jean, my apologies, it was not my intention to imply that your english (or that of any other non native speaker) is poor, far from it. It's just that there is a tendency among us to dissect things, and argue fine points or "split hairs" as the expression goes. (and in fact, your English is very good and so I thought you were just 'splitting hairs' yourself.) I think sometimes we want language to be like code, but it isn't, and trying to make it as unequivocal as code makes documents unreadable.
If you look up any word, you can find many meanings - it's a bit like trying to rely on Google translate. But usually the correct meaning is clear from context and 'standard useage', and in this case it is straightforward. I appreciate that this might create issues for some non native speakers, but an accurate translation should fix any ambiguities.
Again, my apologies, I should not be so terse.
regards,
Helen
-- IRC: helen_au helen.south@opensuse.org helensouth.com
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Jean Cayron jean.cayron@gmail.com wrote:
Helen,
I just give my point of view. Maybe you are correct. I agree it must be straigtforward and in good plain english but don't look down on non native speaker, sorry if we speek with words of one syllabe. They'll be the ones who will misunderstood it. And openSUSE is an international project.
But I suppose this kind of question should be solved by a lawyer and not by geeks sinds these are a copyright terms.
So I will not argue anymore on this.
Regards,
Jean
2011/3/10 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Jean Cayron jean.cayron@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/9 Helen South helen.south@opensuse.org:
As it's so clear, why do people like me ask it? The title of a publication can be the title of the article of the review inside Linux Magazine or the title of the blogpost. One does not call the title of a post or article "name of the post/article" but well "title". So it's well confusing.
A publication can be anything made available to the public, including electronic publishing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication)
While a title is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/title): 3.The name of a book, film, musical piece, painting, or other work of art. 4.A publication. 5.A written title, credit, or caption shown with a film, video, or performance (usually titles pl). 6.The subject of a writing; a short phrase that summarizes the entire topic.
And a name is (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/name): 1.Any word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing.
If one will use that word "title", a short example should be given. Also can a publication be many things.
Regards,
Jean
Jean, you could say that of almost any word you might choose to use, and by explaining every word in detail, the document becomes unreadable. The more specific you get, the more problems can be created by ommission, too. A somewhat broad definition covers all eventualities.
Frankly, in common, standard English usage, the expression "Title of a publication" is extremely clear and few people will misunderstand it.
A blog post has a title, but it is a post, not a publication. The entire blog is the publication.
A magazine article has a title, but it is not a publication. The magazine is the publication.
The definition needs to be in good plain english, not written in words of one syllable.
best,
Helen
-- IRC: helen_au helen.south@opensuse.org helensouth.com
On Wednesday 16 March 2011 23:25:14 Helen South wrote:
Apologies for commenting so late in the piece, but I wanted to raise a couple of small points, for what it's worth -
- "We are pleased to permit you to link to opensuse.org from your web
site"
Do people need permission to link to a website? I've never heard of that before. Permission to use an openSUSE graphic to do so, sure, but to actually link? I feel it sounds rather self-important.
- Please do not create mock or parody products with names based on the
openSUSE Marks. Also, please be aware that, in our opinion, it is not "fair use" to use the openSUSE Marks in a manner that disparages openSUSE technology or the openSUSE Project.
I'm pretty sure that there is no legal leg to stand on in regards to a genuine parody. "Please do not create mock or parody products"? I can't help thinking this is an invitation to create a lime-green distribution called monoSUZY :)
I'm also a little concerned about the 'in our opinion' regarding disparagement, since the only opinion that matters is the court's, which I expect have a list of very specific definitions of what constitutes fair use and disparagement and what doesn't.
I think these two paragraphs are not so much meant to set strict legal requirements, but to explain the intention of the guidelines, and give people examples what we like to see, and what we don't like to see. That's actually something I like about the guidelines text, that it's not only legalese, but tries to transport and explain the intention and meaning of the guidelines. So from my point of view, I would leave them as they are.
Hi,
I have two comments:
1) "To ensure this is the case, we reserve the right to revoke your permission at any time."
I would specify who decides this and how, so to make the process more transparent and let the reader know immediately who to ask for info. In the past requests were sent back and forth mainly because who requested permission did not have a clear idea of who was responsible of taking care of this, since it was not written in the guidelines.
2) "Partial instructions on how to remove some trademark uses of the openSUSE Marks from openSUSE can be found at..."
Would it be possible to have a list of "complete instructions" so that if you follow those strictly, you are compliant and the process is sped up, at least in some cases?
It is very ambiguous to have statements like "partial instructions are ..." and "We cannot, however, tell you categorically what will and will not qualify as a "fair use.", especially if you have to deal with a legal office which won't let you take any risk. I know common sense should apply, but it does not happen when it comes these things, and such ambiguous statements simply make it harder for the contributor. In the case of the trademark, where is the trademark registered should tell you what is fair use too, for example. In other words also for this it would be useful to have some definite set of cases when it is clearly "fair use".
Just to cents :-)
Best, A.
2011/5/16 Jos Poortvliet jospoortvliet@gmail.com:
On Monday 28 February 2011 11:55:02 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
We had a couple of discussions in the past about how to improve the openSUSE trademark guidelines (see e.g.
Attached some minor comments. Thanks for pushing this, let's get it out asap :D
On Monday 16 May 2011 18:42:01 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2011 11:55:02 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
We had a couple of discussions in the past about how to improve the openSUSE trademark guidelines (see e.g.
Attached some minor comments. Thanks for pushing this, let's get it out asap
:D
One more thing. I'm unsure if the usecase of selling computers with openSUSE on them is covered with this. Should we add that? At least saying "contact the board"?
On Monday 16 May 2011 18:42:01 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2011 11:55:02 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
We had a couple of discussions in the past about how to improve the openSUSE trademark guidelines (see e.g.
Attached some minor comments. Thanks for pushing this, let's get it out asap
Thanks for the comments, and yes, we should get it done. That's why I'd also limit changes to a minimum at this point in time. We can do another revision later, if that's needed, but for now I would run with what we have agreed on by now.
Replies to your comments inline:
It is fundamentally important to us that any permitted use you make of the openSUSE Marks be of the highest quality and integrity and meet the highest **"aims to meet" or "meets"
Good point. Fixed.
=== Fair Use ===
We acknowledge and support your right to make "fair use" of the openSUSE Marks, and do not mean to suggest with these Guidelines that our permission is required in such cases. We cannot, however, tell you categorically what will and will not qualify as a "fair use." **as this depends on your local laws and specific situation.
That's a useful clarification.
=== Distributing openSUSE With Modifications ===
You may distribute openSUSE with modifications. Such distributions can be created via SUSE Studio, KIWI, or the openSUSE Build Service, or via your own build process.
**The following is very harsh. It is basically 'softened' afterwards but I'd like to say it more gently in the first place.
In making such a distribution, you must remove all trademark uses of the openSUSE Marks from the version of openSUSE you are modifying.
**How about replacing this with: In making such a distribution, you must ensure it is clear that your version is modified from the official openSUSE product. You cannot name your product openSUSE or directly use the openSUSE Marks but you can use the special set of branding packages or your own brand(s).
It might sound harsh, but it's also very clear, so I would keep it.
=== Advocacy Groups ===
We welcome the use of the openSUSE Marks in connection with user groups and other openSUSE advocacy groups, but you may only do so in accordance with the following requirements:
- Your use is not commercial in nature;
- In using an openSUSE Mark, you are in fact referring to the thing that
the openSUSE Mark represents;
- There is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your group is
approved by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the openSUSE Project (or its related projects) unless it actually has been so approved, sponsored, or affiliated;
***-> as we don't have any such status, should we clarify this?!? And if so, how?
I think this is a separate discussion, and out of the scope of the actual trademark guidelines.
How advocacy groups are affiliated or approved is also more a social question. Whatever the answer is, the trademark guidelines basically just say, that you shouldn't misrepresent your status, and that holds in any case.
Personally I'm fine with the informal community-driven way advocacy groups are run right now. I don't really feel a need to make this more formal.
=== Publications ===
If you want to include all or part of an openSUSE Mark in the title or subtitle of a publication such as a book or magazine, you should seek our permission (see "Contact Information" below to request permission). ** unless it constitutes fair use (as is the case with magazines and the like). **(to point out to ppl that indeed fair use exists and allows this)
It's kind of redunant, and as it's not easy to specify, what exactly "fair use" is in a general way, I would rather leave it out.
=== Product and Service Names, and Compatibility References ===
You should not include an openSUSE Mark in the name of your product or service, regardless of whether it's commercial or non-commercial in nature. This includes online services, such as e-commerce, community, blog, informational, promotional, and personal home page sites.
With that said, we consider it permissible to use an openSUSE Mark in a file, folder, directory, or path name.
We also recognize that the openSUSE Community needs some way to identify projects, products, and services that are compatible with openSUSE. Our concern is that users not be confused as to whether a compatible project, product, or service is official or not. To address that concern, we request that you indicate compatibility with openSUSE using one of the following tag-lines (or its equivalent):
**Again, we mention official but don't have anything 'official'. What IS official. Anything SUSE Linux Producs GmbH does? Anything the board does? Board mebers? SUSE Employees? openSUSE Members? only the openSUSE DVDs coolo produces? We do have to write that down somewhere, I'll work on something.
I think it's a theoretical discussion, what "official" means. It also only makes sense in relation to a defined situation. All the groups you mention have some way to do things officially, and it means different things. As long as this is not confused, and e.g. something is mispresented as coming officially from the SUSE company, when it's actually done by the community, we should be fine here, and that's what the trademark guidelines basically say.
Other than that we should follow the proven guideline of "those who do the work decide", and let actions speak. I don't see the need to make things more complicated here.
On Monday 16 May 2011 20:25:02 Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
- "To ensure this is the case, we reserve the right to revoke your
permission at any time."
I would specify who decides this and how, so to make the process more transparent and let the reader know immediately who to ask for info. In the past requests were sent back and forth mainly because who requested permission did not have a clear idea of who was responsible of taking care of this, since it was not written in the guidelines.
We have a "contact" section in the guidelines, which tells where to direct questions and requests. Of course this contact has to be responsive, but that's out of the scope of the actual guidelines.
- "Partial instructions on how to remove some trademark uses of the
openSUSE Marks from openSUSE can be found at..."
Would it be possible to have a list of "complete instructions" so that if you follow those strictly, you are compliant and the process is sped up, at least in some cases?
It is very ambiguous to have statements like "partial instructions are ..." and "We cannot, however, tell you categorically what will and will not qualify as a "fair use.", especially if you have to deal with a legal office which won't let you take any risk. I know common sense should apply, but it does not happen when it comes these things, and such ambiguous statements simply make it harder for the contributor. In the case of the trademark, where is the trademark registered should tell you what is fair use too, for example. In other words also for this it would be useful to have some definite set of cases when it is clearly "fair use".
The problem is that it's really hard to list complete instructions and define "fair use" generally, as it depends on your situation. The guidelines already contain a lot of pretty concrete rules. I think, at least for now, that's as good as we can do. Maybe we can put some more thoughts and effort into a later revision of the guidelines.
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 14:55:10 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Monday 16 May 2011 18:42:01 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2011 11:55:02 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
<snip>
Ok. Thanks for implementing the input :D
We also recognize that the openSUSE Community needs some way to identify projects, products, and services that are compatible with openSUSE. Our concern is that users not be confused as to whether a compatible project, product, or service is official or not. To address that concern, we request that you indicate compatibility with openSUSE using one of the following tag-lines (or its equivalent):
**Again, we mention official but don't have anything 'official'. What IS official. Anything SUSE Linux Producs GmbH does? Anything the board does? Board mebers? SUSE Employees? openSUSE Members? only the openSUSE DVDs coolo produces? We do have to write that down somewhere, I'll work on something.
I think it's a theoretical discussion, what "official" means. It also only makes sense in relation to a defined situation. All the groups you mention have some way to do things officially, and it means different things. As long as this is not confused, and e.g. something is mispresented as coming officially from the SUSE company, when it's actually done by the community, we should be fine here, and that's what the trademark guidelines basically say.
Other than that we should follow the proven guideline of "those who do the work decide", and let actions speak. I don't see the need to make things more complicated here.
Well, you know my thoughts on that now - the "those who do the work decide" rule works fine for 40-year-old-white-German-males. It's a huge barrier for anyone who doesn't regularly go to meetings & talks to openSUSE people, learning 'how things work'. But as you also know, I think we can solve 95% of that problem by talking about it. Which I'll do :D
Hey,
On 31.05.2011 15:01, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 14:55:10 Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
Other than that we should follow the proven guideline of "those who do the work decide", and let actions speak. I don't see the need to make things more complicated here.
Well, you know my thoughts on that now - the "those who do the work decide" rule works fine for 40-year-old-white-German-males.
How come that "those who do, decide" is a crucial rule for the whole FOSS community then? Where 40-year-old-white-German-males are a rather small group in the demography.
It's a huge barrier for anyone who doesn't regularly go to meetings & talks to openSUSE people, learning 'how things work'.
So you think that you should be able to participate in a group without any effort to get to know the group? This thinking is really starting to worry me. Essentially this will make openSUSE a committee driven, rules and regulations spitting, well structured hierarchy. It'll make openSUSE go corporate, a project that is "managed".
I simply don't see how this will further our community nor do I think this will ever succeed in reaching the goals we agreed upon in the guiding principles. For some time now we're moving into this direction and it turns off people that are willing to contribute by "just doing things". You "sacrifice" those people for the potential contributions of "Aunt Tillie" who doesn't want to spend more then an hour a week for the project. This is wrong and leads nowhere.
Henne
Le 31/05/2011 15:01, Jos Poortvliet a écrit :
learning 'how things work'. But as you also know, I think we can solve 95% of that problem by talking about it. Which I'll do :D
anyway, bugs filled against trademark should get an answer
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677565
not that it's that important, but this don't look seious :-(
jdd
Am Dienstag 31 Mai 2011, 15:01:51 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:
Hey,
Other than that we should follow the proven guideline of "those who do the work decide", and let actions speak. I don't see the need to make things more complicated here.
Well, you know my thoughts on that now - the "those who do the work decide" rule works fine for 40-year-old-white-German-males.
I can't see what you mean with that. Moreover I find the phrase not appropiate, but lets leave that aside. The "those who do decide" rule is one of the fundaments of communities. We can and will not let that go.
It's a huge barrier for anyone who doesn't regularly go to meetings & talks to openSUSE people, learning 'how things work'.
Is that a request for more documenting of what is done? I agree, thats needed. However I wonder if the Trademark Guideline is the right place to outline stuff that is a) sometimes defined by people who do it and b) possibly not know yet. IMO the guidelines should give a frame in which we operate but should not try to rule out everything as that takes away free space, creativity and fun. If questions arise we again look at the guidelines and decide. The fact that it can happen that we have to discuss again shouldn't be considered as downside but as development of the project.
regards, Klaas
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 16:42:18 Klaas Freitag wrote:
Am Dienstag 31 Mai 2011, 15:01:51 schrieb Jos Poortvliet:
Hey,
Other than that we should follow the proven guideline of "those who do the work decide", and let actions speak. I don't see the need to make things more complicated here.
Well, you know my thoughts on that now - the "those who do the work decide" rule works fine for 40-year-old-white-German-males.
I can't see what you mean with that. Moreover I find the phrase not appropiate, but lets leave that aside. The "those who do decide" rule is one of the fundaments of communities. We can and will not let that go.
Of course, I was being a tad black and white there, sorry. Obviously, 'who does the work decides' is so central to who we are it could never go away. Or rather, if it did, that'd be a huge problem. The problem I have with it is that the rule is about more than doing the work - it is about being pro- active. That is again a huge plus for the people in our community - if you want to make a difference, DO IT. Unfortunately, people who aren't very pro- active but otherwise could be excellent contributors are limited by this.
And the 'german-male' thing I mention because this has strong relationships with gender and culture.
Someone female and Indian is simply less likely to ask questions before he/she knows reasonably surely what the right way is to do something. But if there is no way to find out other than ask - well, that person might simply not do it.
And yes, I know people like that. People who WANT to contribute but see it as a huge barrier that they have to ask "stupid questions" with the risk of making someone think (and sometimes say) "what an idiot".
Better documenting things can help those people without erecting barriers or setting up committees - I surely am not pushing for that.
I do need to sit down, go through the wiki, and see where I can modify/improve documentation. Sorry for not having done so yet - it's not a trivial thing to do in terms of time...
It's a huge barrier for anyone who doesn't regularly go to meetings & talks to openSUSE people, learning 'how things work'.
Is that a request for more documenting of what is done? I agree, thats needed. However I wonder if the Trademark Guideline is the right place to outline stuff that is a) sometimes defined by people who do it and b) possibly not know yet. IMO the guidelines should give a frame in which we operate but should not try to rule out everything as that takes away free space, creativity and fun. If questions arise we again look at the guidelines and decide. The fact that it can happen that we have to discuss again shouldn't be considered as downside but as development of the project.
You're right, agreed.
regards, Klaas
Hi,
2011/5/31 Cornelius Schumacher cschum@suse.de:
On Monday 16 May 2011 20:25:02 Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
I would specify who decides this and how, so to make the process more transparent and let the reader know immediately who to ask for info. In the past requests were sent back and forth mainly because who requested permission did not have a clear idea of who was responsible of taking care of this, since it was not written in the guidelines.
We have a "contact" section in the guidelines, which tells where to direct questions and requests. Of course this contact has to be responsive, but that's out of the scope of the actual guidelines.
OK.
It is very ambiguous to have statements like "partial instructions are ..." and "We cannot, however, tell you categorically what will and will not qualify as a "fair use.", especially if you have to deal with a legal office which won't let you take any risk. I know common sense should apply, but it does not happen when it comes these things, and such ambiguous statements simply make it harder for the contributor. In the case of the trademark, where is the trademark registered should tell you what is fair use too, for example. In other words also for this it would be useful to have some definite set of cases when it is clearly "fair use".
The problem is that it's really hard to list complete instructions and define "fair use" generally, as it depends on your situation. The guidelines already contain a lot of pretty concrete rules. I think, at least for now, that's as good as we can do. Maybe we can put some more thoughts and effort into a later revision of the guidelines.
Thanks for the clarification. My point was that I do not see a lot of difference in terms of legalese compared to previous version. If you have to deal with a legal office in your institution, the new guidelines will give origin to the exact same procedure and, most likely, to the same result as before: a no go.
My suggestion was to give complete instructions not for everything, but especially for the de-branding part. In other words something along the lines "If you remove this and this and this, we won't make any claim". What we currently have sounds, between the lines, like "SUSE reserves the rights of changing this policy at all times and evaluating each case individually" (I know it's not written, but it is not excluded either), which is not going to help in making the process slimmer and faster for contributors who work in institutions, especially public ones.
Thanks for all the work done on this.
Best, A.
-
Alan Clark -
Alberto Passalacqua -
Andreas Jaeger -
Andrew Joakimsen -
Cornelius Schumacher -
Helen South -
Henne Vogelsang -
jdd -
Jean Cayron -
Jos Poortvliet -
Juergen Weigert -
Klaas Freitag -
Manu Gupta