> I inserted
> inside the Logo policy page the notion of "substantially
> unmodified version of LibreOffice" that already exists in the
> Trademark Policy.
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"
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.
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
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.
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 ?
> 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
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.
Mozilla use a single policy for their "Marks" and IMHO we
should do the same (as the original, legally reviewed guidelines did)
- I see you replaced "Mark" with "Trademark" in each case, I don't
think this makes for a clear, crisp policy.
> Thank you everyone... I guess the vote is being reconducted for one
> more period of 24 hours now.
My take is: that the situation gets more confused rather than
clearer the more that the pages are edited The original TM
policy, as reviewed some weeks ago was good, currently it is not
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.
Then I suggest we write that down clearly, succinctly, and
minimally - in tight language that can be understood by everyone.
That is IMHO not where we are today; so I recommend we do not
approve the policy in its current form; sorry.
Normally I woud probably start to rant but you're outlining something
I think if you're confused then other people are confused. I think that
the TM policy is trying to address one global situation while keeping
one specific exception (the TDF outline) as a somewhat more restrictive
The TM policy should be kept as is, probably, but we should come up
with one specific exception for TDF, included right inside the text.
Which means we need to draft one more paragraph into it. What do you
(and the others) think