Re: GNOME Merchandise Process

[Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron Sun COM>]

Dave:

> Brian Cameron wrote:
> > In fact, the above Wiki pages seem very out of date and do not reflect
> > much information about current merchandising work we do, such as with
> > Hackerthreads.
>
> The problem with Hackerthreads is that the agreement dates from 2000 or
> 2001, and we have not been able to find any written agreement or record
> of one after our last executive director left.
>
> (FoundationBoard/MerchandisingAgreement is a restricted page, by the way)

Actually the Hackerthreads attachment on the
FoundationBoard/MerchandisingAgreement restricted Wiki page is the final
agreement from 2004.  I tracked this down after digging through old
board-list mail archives and meeting minutes.

> Don't forget KillerMundi produce merchandising too - I don't believe we
> get a cut from this currently (but perhaps GNOME Hispano does?):
> http://www.freewear.org/?page=list_items&org=GNOMEHispano

Thanks for pointing this out.

> >  On the Trademark Wiki, I can see that there are some
> > draft, but not "official" trademark agreement template documents.
> > Perhaps this is a good starting point?
>
> In general, we've gone over this several times. The guidelines we
> drafted are here: http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/index.html

I find it a little confusing that there are also "draft trademark
agreements" on http://live.gnome.org/Trademark.  What is the purpose of
http://live.gnome.org/Trademark?  Should this page be deleted or be
modified to just point to http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing now?

> The state of play when I was on the board was:
> * Referring to GNOME didn't need any trademark agreement obviously. This
> and other fair use/authorised uses of the marks are listed here:
> http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing/guidelines/
> * Community trademark agreement sufficed for a range of uses, including
> creating a website for GNOME, promoting GNOME, and creating a local user
> group, but did not cover any commercial use of marks (including printing
> t-shirts for resale) - but we've mostly turned a blind eye to that kind
> of thing.
> * Anything else needs a specific trademark licensing agreement
> explicitly allowing it. Merchandising requires an agreement, for
> example, as does using a custom/hacked version of the GNOME logo for
> your user group. In general, this has been straightforward to handle -
> the uisage is OK, we say "yes", the usage is ugly, we say "no - go here,
> these guys will help you make something that looks nice", and the usage
> is commercial, we say "yes, for a cut, thanks" and need a signed agreement.
>
> You also missed this page, a very useful document:
> http://live.gnome.org/BrandGuidelines
>
> I fished out the trademark agreement we signed with that jewellery
> company (in general, legal-private gnome org dealt with issues like this
> - might be a good idea to keep them in the loop). Looking at
> discussions, Luis Villa and James Vasile both spent time on this one.
> It's attached.

Thanks, I added this to the as an attachment to the private
FoundationBoard/MerchandisingAgreement Wiki.

> > If the above website could be further fleshed out
> > to explain how to handle other common use cases, then this would be
> > really helpful.  For example:
> >
> >    - For personal use (a t-shirt an individual is making for themselves)
> >    - For an event (logos on event merchandise)
>
> I think it's reasonable for someone in the foundation to verify quality
> when it comes to the brand, and veto t-shirt printing if they're ugly
> t-shirts. In general, though, I'd be happy to modify the user group
> agreement to say that creating merchandise for events for non-commercial
> purposes is OK, if you have the quality of work OKed. In short, you can
> sell t-shirts to recoup costs, but not to make money, if you're a user
> group. And the user group agreement should then also cover the
> individual/personal use case too.

I think the modification you suggest would be a good change.

Brian