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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: KOfficeSource and KOffice
From:       "Michael Fair" <michael () daclubhouse ! net>
Date:       2008-01-15 9:45:48
Message-ID: A4F359A97EA94BE09F68344455497275 () Barqs
[Download RAW message or body]

> So, *IN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION*:


My primary thought is that the GPL should really be the inspiration for any 
licensing program.
Ownership of all the parts belong to their respective creators but the 
ability to reuse is explicitly allowed and protected.

However, in that context, KOfficeSource should be allowed to use the KOffice 
name as long as I can use KOfficeSourceTwo as the name of my KOffice 
application research institute.  I

 think we can all see that's a bad idea in terms of the amount of confusion 
it can create.

I'm reminded of the clauses in some of the BSD licenses that say you can use 
this code as long as you call your project something else.  I think that 
would be very appropriate here instead of protecting right to use/modify it 
looks like we are looking to protect the appropriate use of a label.

In that sense, I think of every project as its own entity and should have 
its label as such.


> * Should the KDE e.V be allowed to sublicense the KOffice trademark to
> anybody to use? Under which general conditions?

1) Yes absolutely, not as part of an entity, product, or service name, but 
certainly in any descriptions or marketing material.

The licensee should be restricted from using more than 66% of any individual 
word as part of an entity,  product, or service name that licensee makes 
available unless 1) that licensee is generally considered the main steward 
for the project/community surrounding the project or 2) used as its own word 
within the name immediately following the word "for" or whatever the 
appropriate equivalent is for each language.

This is to protect any confusion from the project/community surrounding the 
project and any individual entity, product, or service.

I think offering the "PowerPak for KOffice" would be OK because KOffice 
there refers to a separate KOffice product, but offering the 
"KOfficePowerPak" would not be.  I'm even reserved about allowing the 
"KOffice PowerPak" because while it is a separate word, I'm not sure that 
it's clearly a separate product/project.

"KOffice PowerPak Developers" - not OK.
"PowerPak Developers for KOffice" - go right ahead.

2)
Definitely periodicly ([bi]annually) renewed, revokable, and 
non-transferable.
I believe in putting "dead-man" switches to protect the marks.  Unless some 
sort of action is taken to renew the license for the mark, use of the mark 
gets revoked.  Doing bad things gets the mark revoked.  And of course only 
available to the entity to which the mark was originally licensed.

The licensee shall actively avoid representing itself as the main 
contributor to a project/community.
For instance, "The leading provider of KOffice solutions."
However "A leading provider of KOffice solutions." would be fine.


Oftentimes a licensee makes some commitment not to harm and in some cases 
even defend the licensor.  I think there should be some provision where a 
licensee agrees to be a contributor to the community and the ideals of the 
community.  The licensee agrees to actively promote the ideals of FOSS (as 
defined by KDE e.V) and in general participate in a constructive manner with 
the project/community (this does not preclude forking for irreconcilable 
differences).  That's a price for using KDE official marks.


Perhaps there's an opportunity here for a "KDE e.V Good Stewardship Seal of 
Approval" that represents to people that this entity is a friend of the 
community.  Receiving such a seal then becomes a promotable object by the 
entity, but also on the flip side it sets up the opportunity for KDE e.V to 
make a press release of such seal being revoked should things get really 
ugly and go south.  Revoking that seal should be restricted solely to 
actions that take freedoms away from the community.  Forking a project (even 
to the anger of all) should not be prohibited not cause an entity to lose 
its seal.  However, acquiring copyrights from contributors and changing the 
license to make them non-open, or otherwise making their contributions 
proprietary (Tivo-ization) could warrant it.



> * Should KOfficeSource GmbH in particular be allowed to use the
> wordmark "KOffice" in their (our) name?  Under which particular conditions
> (ownership, board, actions, etc)?

A name is an identity and allowing multiple entities to use those marked 
names as part of their names, products, or services implies an ownership of 
that identity by that entity.

If the rules of KOfficeSource GmbH brought under control of the KOffice 
leadership, then yes, go ahead.

If it's an independent entity with separately retained control, then no.
What about "Source for KOffice GmbH" - while it complies with my naming 
rules, it describes something very different and probably violates the 
"don't represent oneself as the main contributor".


_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]