Bernhard Dippold wrote:
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.
Hi Bernhard, all,
well maybe - but maybe we should beforehand try to reach mutual
agreement on what we want to achieve (unless we want to go back &
change the trademark policy, possibly) -
Perhaps it would be sufficient to add a few words to this paragraph:
Hm, I don't think that really clears things up enough?
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".
> * 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.
And this is not clearly separated at all, I'm afraid. The catch is
that there's a very fuzzy border between a splash screen (being
permitted to display TDF), and a screenshot on a box (*not* being
permitted to display TDF, if handed out by a mere community member,
if I interpret you right?)
No - Charles just want to provide different visuals - and as they
aren't protected by an image mark, they can't interfere with the
I think that was Michael's issue - with the link to the logo
guidelines, they actually affect each other, legally.
So if you're ok that if in doubt, the Trademark rules are the
authoritative ones (i.e. I don't want to revisit them, should we
later discover they contradict the intended logo guidelines), then
I'd agree with your proposal to remove the link to the logo
guidelines and approve the trademark rules as-is.