Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-features (265 mails)

< Previous Next >
[openFATE 311039] Review of openSUSE Trademark Guidelines
Feature changed by: Scott Couston (zczc2311)
Feature #311039, revision 15
Title: Review of openSUSE Trademark Guidelines Unconfirmed
Requester: Important

Requested by: Bryen Yunashko (byunashko)
Partner organization:

This feature request is meant to collect the comments of the community
at large The current guidlines can be found here
The openSUSE Board will review comments posted here along with concerns
and considerations collected elsewhere and find ways to
strengthen/clarify the guidelines.
Please review the current guidelines and post comments on language.
(Giving specific language change suggestions is helpful) and if you
have specific cases where current guidelines have been a problem,
please post here as well.

#1: Alberto Passalacqua (greengeeko) (2011-01-06 17:54:32)
first of all, thank you for bringing this problem up. I feel it blocks
contributions concerning derivatives, or, at least, it did with me.
My major concern is the section "Distributing openSUSE With Project-
Based Modifications". According to this section, a distribution with
only openSUSE packages created in Studio must be de-branded, if one
package has been added to the default installation. This basically
translates in de-branding all the distributions created in Studio,
since they do not reflect the default installation pattern.
I would also suggest to create a review process for the "Distributing
openSUSE With All Other Modification" section. I try to explain this
with an example. Let us assume I create a default openSUSE system, and
I add an open source (GPL or compatible) application with file overlay,
and I would like to create a derivative within the openSUSE project
(like, for example, openSUSE medical, which did it, but it is not clear
how). This could be very positive marketing for openSUSE, and would
potentially help in attracting more user, and pay back a bit of the
resources offered through Studio and OBS.
The review process should be simple: a set of a few clear requirements
the contributor has to follow (for example: only GPL, no profit, no
copyright infringment, ...), and the approval should be granted by the
board or automatically, with the possibility of ask for changes to
comply. Please, no long lists of rules, because it just would not cut
it ;-)

#2: Pascal Bleser (pbleser) (2011-01-06 23:54:52) (reply to #1)
Couldn't agree more on all those points, and the current rules are
often in the way as well as not precise enough. But when they have been
set up initially, it was clear that they were just a "first version"
which would have to be perfected in the future. We've failed to do so
up to now.
I believe that even more than "good" use cases, it would be even more
interesting to scratch our head about "bad" use cases (anti-patterns,
if you will, to use software development language) because as much as
all of us want it to be as clear, permissive and simple as possible, we
must also think of the cases of abuse those rules must prevent.

#5: Alberto Passalacqua (greengeeko) (2011-01-07 16:13:00) (reply to
I agree in finding "bad cases". There are borderline situations too,
which is not clear to me how to manage. Among obvious "bad cases": -
The distribution contains software that does not comply with GPL. - The
distribution uses a name, theme or has a goal that might be offensive.
- The distribution includes software that might infringe
patents/copyrights. This brings to the question: can we include codecs?
graphical drivers? flash? adobe reader? Some borderline situation:
- The distribution is a duplicate of another effort. In other words, we
want derivatives, but we do not want to favour the multiplication of
distributions if not necessary. In this case we should provide some
example to be more specific. For example: if a distribution uses
different software stacks to achieve the same task, then it is probably
fine. If it is just a duplication, at that point it does not make much
sense to me, and it is not promotion for openSUSE. Probably it would
fall in the copyright violation anyway, if the authors of the first
distribution achieving the task put a copyright on it.

#13: Cornelius Schumacher (cschum) (2011-01-13 20:09:10) (reply to #5)
License violations, copyright infringements, patents all don't fall
under the trademark question. These are separate issues and should be
handled separately. I don't think it would be good to cover that in the
trademark guidelines. Offensiveness I think is already covered by the
trademark guidelines, or can you think of an offensive way to use the
openSUSE trademark, which is compatible with the current guidelines?
Duplication of efforts really is borderline, and probably out of the
scope of the trademark guidelines as well. This is more a culture and
process problem. To some degree duplication can also be a good thing.

#8: Bryen Yunashko (byunashko) (2011-01-09 00:30:13) (reply to #2)
Bad use of wording on my part. When I said good use cases, I meant good
examples of both bad and good instances. :-) it's the BAD ones we
really want to hear about more than the GOOD ones. :-)

#3: Vincent Untz (vuntz) (2011-01-07 15:24:02) (reply to #1)
FWIW, Cornelius is working on improving this section :-)

#4: Alberto Passalacqua (greengeeko) (2011-01-07 16:01:14) (reply to
Yes, but since we are the "consumers" of the section, it would be nice to
know what's going on, and help where possible. This way we avoid
repetition of work ;-)

#9: Bryen Yunashko (byunashko) (2011-01-09 01:04:17) (reply to #3)
Yes. Already reached out to each other and hoping we can incorporate
our findings.

#12: Cornelius Schumacher (cschum) (2011-01-13 19:57:38) (reply to #1)
As I said in my other comment, I'm working on a proposal, how to make
it more easy to use openSUSE branding for derivatives.
It still would be nice to have a review process for cases, where this
is not enough yet, e.g. when a derivative wants very close association
with openSUSE. like for example the openSUSE Education project. But I
would consider the process itself to be out of the scope of the
trademark guidelines itself and leave it to the judgement of the group
which grants special permission to the trademark. It still would be
nice to document it, of course, but I suppose it can be done in a
little bit less formal and more flexible way than the actual trademark

#6: Stanley Miller (stan_qaz) (2011-01-07 20:23:48)
My main concern is that the OpenSUSE official distribution be easily
recognized as such and any derivatives, subsets or supersets be easily
distinguished from the official version. Alberto's suggestions on
targeted distributions like Medical and Education is worth considering.
Would it be possible to make de-branding a distribution a simple
process where the creator could switch out the official branding for
pre-configured branding for some of the variations ("Uses openSUSE","
Compatible with openSUSE", "Powered by openSUSE") so that branding
changes weren't much of a problem?
If debranding could be automated in the build service so that any build
that didn't follow the official rules for using it that might also help
enforce the policy.

#7: Vincent Untz (vuntz) (2011-01-07 21:47:24) (reply to #6)
We do have branding-openSUSE packages, and the idea would be to not use
those packages but some others that would basically say "Powered by
Cornelius will be able to share more details :-)

#10: Rodney Donovan (rrdonovan) (2011-01-09 17:19:41)
I think what we need here is a visible chart showing where this
organization stands. I know we belong to Novell, but we also have to
delineate our openSUSE organization with offshoots such as education,
medical, etc. As for other software entering the openSUSE fold, yeah,
"Powered by openSUSE" would be great. Also, that they abide by the
official rules already in place.
Making money comes to mind. What are we going to be selling under the
openSUSE brand name? We could use business shirts, laptops, coffee
mugs, instruction manuals. I'm beginning to think you guys like being
poor. I for one would buy business shirts with openSUSE logo, supped up
laptops with the latest SUSE, etc.
Rod Donovan

#11: Cornelius Schumacher (cschum) (2011-01-13 19:52:34)
The proposal I'm working on is to have a distinct "powered by openSUSE"
branding, which can liberally used by openSUSE derivatives. This way we
keep the unique official openSUSE brand for the official distribution,
but allow distributions and appliances based on openSUSE to identify
and promote the relationship with openSUSE using the "powered by
openSUSE" branding. The rules for the "powered by openSUSE" branding
would be much more relaxed than the ones we currently have in the
trademark guidelines, so that people actually can easily use it without
needing to manually get permission to use it for everything. Of course
there still would be limitations, like not using the branding in a
confusing way or for purposes going against the openSUSE project, etc.
In addition to that there are a couple of clarifications and
simplifications which can be done to the guidelines, but that's mostly
minor stuff.

+ #14: Scott Couston (zczc2311) (2011-01-22 14:24:07)
+ With every new release we all see the boot screen change colour and
+ shape. Image association with product is currently a nightmare for the
+ best marketing agent to fix. We are not consistent with Font, Colour,
+ Graphics and their maintenance. Have a look at the boxed version of
+ 10.1-10.2 - The beautiful Lizard on the boxed set should have been kept
+ - It was seriously good. From a marketing perspective we don’t have a
+ recognisable brand, images, colour, fonts, layouts,slogans and once we
+ either adopt trademarks or not, we need serious marketing and graphic
+ designers help. I know this is not a big deal but I would love the
+ default installation of ANY browser, from the OpenSuse ISO, to carry a
+ selection of OpenSuse stationery. Likewise I would like to see all our
+ mainstream email clients all carry a selection of our stationery. We
+ truely are in a mess as far as product branding and associated slogans
+ and naming conventions. We have no Identity for market because we keep
+ changing everything and there is no continuity Email Stationery,
+ Browser Stationery

openSUSE Feature:

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
This Thread