Hi Michael, Charles, all,
please let me describe how I think it is meant - probably we need to rephrase the Logo policy (but not the Trademark Policy).
As you should vote on the Trademark Policy, perhaps it would be reasonable to leave the Logo Policy (having less legal weight IMHO) aside for the moment.
It can be fine-tuned later on.
If you want the Logo Policy to become a relevant part, then you should consider to add a link (and/or a one-line description) to the Policies paragraph (merchandise, services). At the moment this paragraph doesn't differ between the different logos.
Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph:
At the moment it reads:
You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites.
Adding "for that purpose" restricts the use of the "internal" logo:
You may create and sell merchandise using TDF Trademarks without additional permission provided that you use only unmodified graphics for that purpose from the logo page on TDF and LibreOffice websites.
If you are interested in my perception of the Logo Policy, please read on - even if the topic is tightly connected, it is a different one...
Michael Meeks schrieb:
inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially unmodified
version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the Trademark Policy.
This is a direct reference to the Trademark Policy - I don't know if it is necessary to repeat it here.
The main point for the product is:
When you distribute a product that is allowed to be called LibreOffice (and this has to be defined when it is compiled - at least this is what I think as non-coder), this product contains the logo *with* TDF subline, as it is "substantially unmodified".
Sure - but the Logo page seems to suggest to me that you can use the
LibreOffice logo for anything at all - the "Usage example" seems to
accept that you -can- use the "LibreOffice" name for:
* Community made DVDs or USB keys with "LibreOffice"
* Supporter websites referring to "LibreOffice"
It's the Usage Examples paragraph, the Rules paragraph is above:
"Individual community members and other people referring to our product and the community should use the logo without the subline."
As contrasted to the TDF mark, which is reserved for "substantially
unmodified" software. Does that mean we are even defending the
LibreOffice mark at all ? what are the limits on its use ? the TM policy
says it can only be used for "Substantially unmodified" software too.
That's the basic rule - nothing has changed here.
The product is only allowed to be called "LibreOffice", if it contains the "substantially unmodified binaries".
But in the description of this product, references to the community, merchandise or support people should not use the logo with TDF subline, if they don't speak for the community or TDF.
Reading the legalse, I am -very- confused; it seems like there are a
lot of things that we are trying to use this policy for:
* restricting spokespeople to a chosen set
* ensuring that binaries integrity and origin is known
* defending our trademark so it is valid: ie. it must be
You're right: These are parts of the Trademark Policy, but for the first point misinterpretation should be reduced by appliance of the Logo Policy.
Then there are two sets of marks:
* The Document Foundation
And it (seems) to me - that we want to have a different policy for
these two marks.
No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the wordmarks.
Well - worse than that - I read the "Trademark Guidelines" - which
incidentally are quite good legalese, and it says there is no
difference. Then I read the "Rules" page, and it says there is a
Which is correct ?
The Trademark Guidelines.
There is no way to use the word "LibreOffice" in a way that is not in agreement with the Trademark Policy.
But the logo to be used for this reference exists in two different versions. One for TDF and community, one for everybody else.
It fixes the inconsistency or even the contradiction between the two.
You may object of course we might just merge the two pages, but
that's where I disagree: Legally speaking, trademarks, logos, image
marks, wordmarks are different notions and have different values.
Really - I strongly dislike this belief that we want different rules to
a logo vs. word-mark, vs. Trademark. Are we really saying it is ok for
someone to call it "LibreOffice, The Document Foundation" - if they use
a different font/set of colors / style of writing ? I hope not.
Nobody told so - and I can't read it on the Logo Policy page either.
[...]The original TM policy, as
reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not watertight.
I would strongly suggest we step back and re-consider actually what it
is we want to achieve with this separation of different logos / marks;
it is -highly- unclear to me.
I don't know if it is necessary to separate official logo usage from "external". Debian tried this by creating different logos (one under proprietary and another under open license), but at least in public the "official" version is scarcely recognized: http://www.debian.org/logos/
In my eyes it should be sufficient to provide guidelines to the logo usage - not only for the proper spacing, colors and so on, but to describe, what we think is necessary to keep a reference to our product and community unmistakably different from our own public appearance.