Re: Minutes of the Board meeting of October 29th, 2013

Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
I for one am not happy with this situation. I remember that, years ago,
Luis wanted to find an alternative way which wouldn't imply these strict
guidelines. But to be honest, if there's no other way, then I think I'd
like to question the need to trademark the logo.

Can you clarify a bit? You think that anyone should be able to use the
logo in any way?

I think that if our trademark guidelines restrict too much our extended
community (by extended, I mean groups like downstreams, LUGs, etc.),
then things are broken.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "too much". We certainly
don't want to be draconian about it (an aside: any trademark usage
issues I have been involved in have been dealt with in a friendly
manner). At the same time, I think it is desirable to have guidelines
which help people to use the logo and name effectively.

This could be because the guidelines are unnecessarily too strict or
because the trademark requires too strict guidelines, in which case the
trademark is actually hurting us, probably more than it protects us.

Do we have examples of the guidelines "hurting us"?

In the Ubuntu GNOME case, I think it's fair to ask about the logo,
irrespective of the trademark guidelines. Their logo [1] is
essentially the same as the GNOME logo itself; some differentiation
seems beneficial for both them and us. We don't have to be unfriendly
about it, but then a dialogue about how they can help to support the
GNOME brand doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Btw, I suddenly wonder: if what is trademarked is the "foot + GNOME
text" image, then is usage of only the foot covered by the trademark?

Indeed. The trademarks page doesn't include a specimen of the logo
mark without the text:



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]