[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: [kde-community] KDE office (was: Your KDE highlight of 2014?)
From:       Mirko Boehm <mirko () kde ! org>
Date:       2015-01-01 13:49:30
Message-ID: 0970065B-B5D4-4E7F-9139-7733761E430D () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Happy new year everybody!

> On 29 Dec 2014, at 16:05, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo@kde.org> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, December 29, 2014 13.43:44 Mirko Boehm wrote:
> > the least of our worries. If a significant portion of commits are coming
> > from that room, why wouldn't it be a KDE office? :-)
> 
> Two reasons:
> 
> a) if person / company X is permitted without specific license to say they run 
> a KDE office, it becomes much harder (even impossible) to prevent person / 
> company Y from doing the same in future. We may like X and trust them and all 
> that, but the precedence of "hey, set up an office and call it a KDE office" 
> opens the door for others we may not. Trademark is predicated on active 
> protection.
> 
> b) KDE could easily find itself liable legally, reputationally, or both for 
> any negative activity[1] that occurs in that physical location. 

Now you sound like a lawyer. The factual tone of these statements makes them sound \
authoritative, which they are not. I suggest to be more careful with that, as it \
discourages others from participating in the debate.  

About a): Protecting a trademark is not the same as preventing the trademark from \
being used. This has been a long-standing misinterpretation in our community. The \
trademark KDE is the trade name of our community as the source of our software. This \
understanding is what we have to protect. If it is used to represent activities of \
our community (as in calling a room where some of our major contributors work a KDE \
office), it does not dilute how the public sees the community through the trademark. \
Because it designates community activities with the community trademark KDE. It would \
only be wrong if the people there aren't KDE contributors, which is certainly not the \
case.

About b): There is no legal liability that comes out of nowhere. The only civil \
relationship between the people in that office and KDE e.V. is that they are using \
the trade name. This use is on line with other uses of the trademark we allow \
(without an explicit trademark license) to contributors. In terms of reputation, I do \
not see a difference to anybody referring to KDE for the software they distribute, or \
by claiming to be a part of the KDE community. "Negative activity" is not limited to \
a physical location. 

> A "KDE office" implicitly represents KDE. It's all fun and games until someone 
> gets an eye poked out, and unfortunately for KDE it would be KDE's eye.
> 
> Given the investment of time, effort and money that has gone into creating the 
> KDE trademark (both legally and reputationally), it would seem that showing 
> the small amount of prudence and organizational maturity to require "KDE 
> offices" to get official permission to use the trademark would not be too much 
> to expect.
> 
> Would you be cool with someone starting a random Endocode office?

Apples and oranges, because Endocode is a specific company, not a distributed \
community. In our community, we allow everybody to represent KDE who contributes, and \
KDE e.V. is there to support. The only difference here is a physical location, while \
the other community activities happen in a virtual space. In terms of trademark use, \
I don't see a difference. 

> For concerns about creating barriers: if someone finds it too onerous to apply 
> for such permission[2], they really can't be that serious about it. Even 
> getting a commit account for KDE requires filling out a small amount of 
> information, committing to important documents (e.g. Manifesto, CoC) and 
> otherwise demonstrating good intent.

Instead of setting up a process of asking for permission, I suggest to put creating a \
trademark licensing policy for KDE back on the agenda. It should provide the ground \
rules of trademark use, and license it on the condition that the licensee sticks to \
these.

> [1] "Negative activity" could be a wide spectrum of things: not paying rent 
> due; illegal activities; activities that go against KDE's Manifesto and/or 
> Code of Conduct ….

None of these become a liability of KDE e.V. If something like that happens, it would \
be a case for the community working group like any other violation of our community \
standards. Worst case, we make ask them to remove the references to KDE. However, \
nothing like that happened, the people working in the office in question are of the \
best standing in our community. The do represent our community in the best possible \
sense. 

Cheers, 

Mirko.
-- 
Mirko Boehm | mirko@kde.org | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist
Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm



_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]