For Monday


Dave Marr
 

Thanks Jeremiah, I believe I now understand the concern you're raising. Let's discuss on the call today the issue of access versus the perception of exclusivity.

Dave


Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 



On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
Jeremiah, Joseph, I'm just catching up on this thread, thanks for the responses.

Jeremiah, I read the materials at the link you provided re the FSF and SFC discussion with Canonical, which seemed to be about a different issue, to my read, but don't have all the background.

You're right of course David. The issue there is really somewhat tangential to Trademark. 
 
 Can you clarify the connection between that recent FSF and SFC action relative to trademark?  

My take is that one of the tools that Canonical uses to deny other projects reuse of Ubuntu packages is trademark (among other things.) This use of trademark by Canonical was enough cause for concern that FSF and others discussed the issue with Canonical in an endeavor to ensure that the spirit of software freedom was being respected along with compliance to the GPL. 

In the case of Open Chain which a group of Linux Foundation members creating an ISO process, trademark is also a potential tool to limit the use of the deliverable from OC, namely certification "marks" and logos. I think that OC should work towards a liberal trademark policy so that a wide distribution of companies have access to OC's process. Or, better yet, refrain entirely from creating a special logo signifying "certification" according to OC. Many ISO standard certificate processes just have "ISO 0000 Certified" as a suitable mark to advertise certification and I think that is sufficient. 

Compliance with Free Software licenses shouldn't be complicated and definitely shouldn't come with an expensive consulting and certification processes. 

Cheers,

Jeremiah


PS:  The authors of the GPL have a lot to say about so-called intellectual property: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html  
 

Thanks,
Dave


 
On Jul 18, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


Also, here you can read about the Python Trademark dispute:
http://opensource.com/law/13/2/python-trademark-dispute

Meh. I prefer the recent discussion by FSF and the Free Software Conservancy: https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms

The approach to trademark described there is similar to the Free Software process itself, liberal and generous. If people say they're using Open Chain's process and they're able to achieve compliance then that is the right outcome. Its highly unlikely that anyone careful enough to follow the process would violate knowingly the Open Chain trademark. 



--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
M: +46 (0)73 093 0506


Dave Marr
 

Jeremiah, Joseph, I'm just catching up on this thread, thanks for the responses.

Jeremiah, I read the materials at the link you provided re the FSF and SFC discussion with Canonical, which seemed to be about a different issue, to my read, but don't have all the background.  Can you clarify the connection between that recent FSF and SFC action relative to trademark?  

Thanks,
Dave

On Jul 18, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


Also, here you can read about the Python Trademark dispute:
http://opensource.com/law/13/2/python-trademark-dispute

Meh. I prefer the recent discussion by FSF and the Free Software Conservancy: https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms

The approach to trademark described there is similar to the Free Software process itself, liberal and generous. If people say they're using Open Chain's process and they're able to achieve compliance then that is the right outcome. Its highly unlikely that anyone careful enough to follow the process would violate knowingly the Open Chain trademark. 


Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 



On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
To all,

Here are interesting "Model Trademark Guidelines" for free/libre/open projects:
http://modeltrademarkguidelines.org/index.php?title=Home:_Model_Trademark_Guidelines

To Jeremiah,

If you wish to discuss, please review the information provided prior
to popping off a dismissive retort.

Oh the lulz!
 
Here's something else from OSI for your thoughtful consideration:
http://wiki.opensource.org/bin/OSI+Operations/OSI-Logo+Misuse
Also, here you can read about the Python Trademark dispute:
http://opensource.com/law/13/2/python-trademark-dispute

Meh. I prefer the recent discussion by FSF and the Free Software Conservancy: https://www.fsf.org/news/canonical-updated-licensing-terms

The approach to trademark described there is similar to the Free Software process itself, liberal and generous. If people say they're using Open Chain's process and they're able to achieve compliance then that is the right outcome. Its highly unlikely that anyone careful enough to follow the process would violate knowingly the Open Chain trademark. 

Cheers,

Jeremiah
 

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983


On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Jeremiah Foster
<jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremiah,
>>
>> Please see the OSI's Trademark Usage Guidelines:
>> http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines
>>
>> You might also find the OSI-vs-OSHWA tussel about logos interesting:
>>
>> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2190402/data-center/open-source-movements-butt-heads-over-logo.html
>> ...this got resolved as follows: http://opensource.org/node/640
>>
>> You could try to convince people like Richard Fontana, Lawrence Lessig,
>> Eben Moglen, and Mark Radcliffe that trademarks signifying compliance are
>> "legalistic nonsense" in the free/libre/open realm.
>
>
> I think they'd agree already. You're not going to sue anyone over trademark
> infringement on a project designed to help someone achieve compliance with
> the GPL. That's just silly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremiah
_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
M: +46 (0)73 093 0506


Joseph Potvin
 

To all,

Here are interesting "Model Trademark Guidelines" for free/libre/open projects:
http://modeltrademarkguidelines.org/index.php?title=Home:_Model_Trademark_Guidelines

To Jeremiah,

If you wish to discuss, please review the information provided prior
to popping off a dismissive retort.
Here's something else from OSI for your thoughtful consideration:
http://wiki.opensource.org/bin/OSI+Operations/OSI-Logo+Misuse
Also, here you can read about the Python Trademark dispute:
http://opensource.com/law/13/2/python-trademark-dispute

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983


On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Jeremiah Foster
<jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:

Jeremiah,

Please see the OSI's Trademark Usage Guidelines:
http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

You might also find the OSI-vs-OSHWA tussel about logos interesting:

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2190402/data-center/open-source-movements-butt-heads-over-logo.html
...this got resolved as follows: http://opensource.org/node/640

You could try to convince people like Richard Fontana, Lawrence Lessig,
Eben Moglen, and Mark Radcliffe that trademarks signifying compliance are
"legalistic nonsense" in the free/libre/open realm.

I think they'd agree already. You're not going to sue anyone over trademark
infringement on a project designed to help someone achieve compliance with
the GPL. That's just silly.

Cheers,

Jeremiah


Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 



On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
Jeremiah,

Please see the OSI's Trademark Usage Guidelines:
http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

You might also find the OSI-vs-OSHWA tussel about logos interesting:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2190402/data-center/open-source-movements-butt-heads-over-logo.html
...this got resolved as follows: http://opensource.org/node/640

You could try to convince people like Richard Fontana, Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglen, and Mark Radcliffe that trademarks signifying compliance are "legalistic nonsense" in the free/libre/open realm.  

I think they'd agree already. You're not going to sue anyone over trademark infringement on a project designed to help someone achieve compliance with the GPL. That's just silly.

Cheers,

Jeremiah


Joseph Potvin
 

Jeremiah,

Please see the OSI's Trademark Usage Guidelines:
http://opensource.org/trademark-guidelines

You might also find the OSI-vs-OSHWA tussel about logos interesting:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2190402/data-center/open-source-movements-butt-heads-over-logo.html
...this got resolved as follows: http://opensource.org/node/640

You could try to convince people like Richard Fontana, Lawrence Lessig, Eben Moglen, and Mark Radcliffe that trademarks signifying compliance are "legalistic nonsense" in the free/libre/open realm. 

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


On Saturday, July 18, 2015, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
Jeremiah,

Of course it's a bit restrictive. Isn't that the point of a certification process and certification mark?

No. It should be about certifying a process that should be widely adopted with the fewest restrictions possible.
 
The sanctions, if necessary, would be most directly handled under normal trademark law. But I imagine that embellished or false claims of compliance would carry weight in any case law in which it were to be found that intellectual rights were inadvertently or deliberately violated. 
 
I think this is completely the wrong approach. The whole point of Free Software is real freedom from this sort of legalistic nonsense. The focus of Open Chain should be in adopting the best practices that exist in the community, not trying to set up some ISO regime that sues people over trademark. Seriously, Open Chain needs to consider policies much more inline with Debian's trademark policy, that will bring the process closer to FOSS practices and out of this maladaptive corporate sphere which really misses the point.

Cheers,

Jeremiah


Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
David,  I propose the following adjustments to your entry (shown here,
and also in the Etherpad)

SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level
designations intended for use in relation to organizations, not
products[NEEDS DISCUSSION...]

SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for
a given version of the specification

So companies going through certification can't use the logo or trademark? That seems a bit restrictive, especially during launch of the overall certification process when you really want to build brand awareness. Perhaps you have the Open Chain logo and you have a "Certified" logo for completing the ISO certification process.  

- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version 1.0"

SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on in product marketing
communications packaging must be clearly associated with the
organization, not the product

I'm not sure this will work. What sort of sanctions do you propose might happen should one claim their "product" as "certified"? You'd have to have some kind of meaningful leverage.

Cheers,

Jeremiah 


--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
jeremiah.foster@...



_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



 

 


Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 



On Saturday, July 18, 2015, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
Jeremiah,

Of course it's a bit restrictive. Isn't that the point of a certification process and certification mark?

No. It should be about certifying a process that should be widely adopted with the fewest restrictions possible.
 
The sanctions, if necessary, would be most directly handled under normal trademark law. But I imagine that embellished or false claims of compliance would carry weight in any case law in which it were to be found that intellectual rights were inadvertently or deliberately violated. 
 
I think this is completely the wrong approach. The whole point of Free Software is real freedom from this sort of legalistic nonsense. The focus of Open Chain should be in adopting the best practices that exist in the community, not trying to set up some ISO regime that sues people over trademark. Seriously, Open Chain needs to consider policies much more inline with Debian's trademark policy, that will bring the process closer to FOSS practices and out of this maladaptive corporate sphere which really misses the point.

Cheers,

Jeremiah


Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
David,  I propose the following adjustments to your entry (shown here,
and also in the Etherpad)

SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level
designations intended for use in relation to organizations, not
products[NEEDS DISCUSSION...]

SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for
a given version of the specification

So companies going through certification can't use the logo or trademark? That seems a bit restrictive, especially during launch of the overall certification process when you really want to build brand awareness. Perhaps you have the Open Chain logo and you have a "Certified" logo for completing the ISO certification process.  

- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version 1.0"

SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on in product marketing
communications packaging must be clearly associated with the
organization, not the product

I'm not sure this will work. What sort of sanctions do you propose might happen should one claim their "product" as "certified"? You'd have to have some kind of meaningful leverage.

Cheers,

Jeremiah 


--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
jeremiah.foster@...



_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



 

 


Joseph Potvin
 

Jeremiah,

Of course it's a bit restrictive. Isn't that the point of a certification process and certification mark?

The sanctions, if necessary, would be most directly handled under normal trademark law. But I imagine that embellished or false claims of compliance would carry weight in any case law in which it were to be found that intellectual rights were inadvertently or deliberately violated.

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...> wrote:


On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
David,  I propose the following adjustments to your entry (shown here,
and also in the Etherpad)

SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level
designations intended for use in relation to organizations, not
products[NEEDS DISCUSSION...]

SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for
a given version of the specification

So companies going through certification can't use the logo or trademark? That seems a bit restrictive, especially during launch of the overall certification process when you really want to build brand awareness. Perhaps you have the Open Chain logo and you have a "Certified" logo for completing the ISO certification process.  

- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version 1.0"

SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on in product marketing
communications packaging must be clearly associated with the
organization, not the product

I'm not sure this will work. What sort of sanctions do you propose might happen should one claim their "product" as "certified"? You'd have to have some kind of meaningful leverage.

Cheers,

Jeremiah 


--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain



Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.foster@...>
 



On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@...> wrote:
David,  I propose the following adjustments to your entry (shown here,
and also in the Etherpad)

SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level
designations intended for use in relation to organizations, not
products[NEEDS DISCUSSION...]

SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for
a given version of the specification

So companies going through certification can't use the logo or trademark? That seems a bit restrictive, especially during launch of the overall certification process when you really want to build brand awareness. Perhaps you have the Open Chain logo and you have a "Certified" logo for completing the ISO certification process.  

- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version 1.0"

SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on in product marketing
communications packaging must be clearly associated with the
organization, not the product

I'm not sure this will work. What sort of sanctions do you propose might happen should one claim their "product" as "certified"? You'd have to have some kind of meaningful leverage.

Cheers,

Jeremiah 


--
Jeremiah C. Foster
GENIVI COMMUNITY MANAGER

Pelagicore AB
Ekelundsgatan 4, 6tr, SE-411 18
Gothenburg, Sweden
M: +46 (0)73 093 0506


Joseph Potvin
 

David, I propose the following adjustments to your entry (shown here,
and also in the Etherpad)

SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level
designations intended for use in relation to organizations, not
products[NEEDS DISCUSSION...]

SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for
a given version of the specification

- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version 1.0"

SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on in product marketing
communications packaging must be clearly associated with the
organization, not the product

Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@...
Mobile: 819-593-5983

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Marr, David <dmarr@...> wrote:
Hi, I’ve added a proposed additional supporting practice under Goal 5
(“Certification”) on the Etherpad. Since it’s an aspect that I don’t think
we’ve had a chance to discuss, am providing a preview here so that any
interested folks could give some advance thought. During the call I’ll
share the thinking leading to this proposal and hope folks will have
suggestions, comments, correction, etc.



Thanks,

Dave



-----



SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level designations
[NEEDS DISCUSSION...]



SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for a
given version

of the specification- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version
1.0"



SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on product packaging


_______________________________________________
OpenChain mailing list
OpenChain@...
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openchain


Dave Marr
 

Hi, I’ve added a proposed additional supporting practice under Goal 5 (“Certification”) on the Etherpad.  Since it’s an aspect that I don’t think we’ve had a chance to discuss, am providing a preview here so that any interested folks could give some advance thought.  During the call I’ll share the thinking leading to this proposal and hope folks will have suggestions, comments, correction, etc.

 

Thanks,

Dave

 

-----

 

SP5.5 Use of the OpenChain logo is limited to company level designations [NEEDS DISCUSSION...]

 

SP5.5.1 The OpenChain logo is not used until certification is met for a given version

of the specification- e.g., "Company X is certified under OpenChain version 1.0"

 

SP5.5.2 The OpenChain logo is not used on product packaging