Re: Brand Guidelines Update

[Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com>]

Allan:

On 04/28/11 08:32 AM, Allan Day wrote:
> Brian Cameron wrote:
> > Allan:
> > We typically have our lawyers review official documents that relate to
> > legal issues such as trademark before we make changes to them.  Is this
> > because the Wiki version of our Guidelines is not yet official?  Most
> > official GNOME legal documents should probably be in
> > http://foundation.gnome.org/licensing.  The Wiki makes more sense for
> > draft documents.  I am not trying to pick on you Allan since I know
> > The GNOME Foundation has not been so good about keeping our fgo website
> > up-to-date. (e.g. bugzilla bugs #629334, #644932 for two examples of
> > issues with just the licensing page).
>
> I wasn't aware that the brand guidelines are official or legal
> documents.

They are referenced, for example, in the GNOME Foundation "Users Group"
trademark license that the GNOME Foundation lawyers wrote up for us
last year:

  http://live.gnome.org/Trademark#Trademark_Agreement_for_User_Groups

Refer to section 1.a.iii, which requires GNOME Users Groups to follow
these Brand Guidelines.  Since we provide such direction in a document
that GNOME Users Groups sign, I would consider it legal.

> They are guidelines. Maybe the foundation should bless them
> with officialdom... I'm not sure what that would achieve though.

I think The GNOME Foundation has treated them as official even though
they are on the Wiki.  However, if we are going to keep an official
document like this on the Wiki, we perhaps need better access control
and/or review process.  It does not make sense for Guidelines referenced
in legal documents to change without a clear review process.

> > At any rate, can you also ask the legal-list gnome org mailing list to
> > encourage our legal experts to also review these changes?
>
> I'll certainly check with our legal advisors. That said, I don't think
> I've made any changes that will have gone against our trademarks. I
> haven't touched the sections on the logo, for instance.

I am not a lawyer, and I will happily defer to whatever language our
lawyers think makes sense.

> > My personal thoughts are that I think it is good for the Brand
> > Guidelines to highlight GNOME 3, to discuss any particular guidelines
> > that relate to using the GNOME brand with GNOME 3, differences in how
> > the brand should be used with GNOME 3 versus earlier versions of GNOME,
> > etc.
> >
> > However, I think statements like "The principle product that is
> > produced by the GNOME Project is GNOME 3" and "GNOME is a word in and
> > of itself. It primarily refers to the GNOME Project, designating the
> > organization which produces GNOME 3, GNOME Applications and GNOME
> > Developer Technologies." may need some rewording (e.g. "principle"
> > or "primarily" only associated with version 3 of GNOME).
>
> I could add 'GNOME 2' as a term, but wouldn't that be rather backwards
> looking?

Listing out all possible past and future versions seems awkward.  Why
can't this document highlight that GNOME 3 is an exciting GNOME branded
product without using limiting language?  I would think that there
should be a number of "GNOME 3" specific brand guidelines that could
help highlight this.

> I'm not sure how much sense it makes to build a brand around
> what we've done in the past. It's what we're doing and where we're going
> that count.

We should hear what the lawyers have to say, I think.  I think most
organizations try to make effective use of their brands regardless of
what the organization is currently focusing on.  For example, I would
bet Timex would get upset if you tried to sell a computer called a
"Sinclair" even though I would imagine Timex is probably focusing on
other things besides home computers now.

> > Why do we want to use language that may even give the appearance of
> > limiting how the GNOME community can reasonably use its own brand?
>
> The consistent use of terminology and visual imagery is a vital part of
> building a brand. The guidelines are intended to encourage people to
> promote the GNOME brand in the same way as the HIG is supposed to help
> people design usable interfaces.

I do not disagree that the Brand Guidelines page should discuss and
promote GNOME 3.  But I think these guidelines need to be clear and
useful for all reasonable and fair usages of the brand.  Saying things
that might suggest to people that the GNOME brand only applies to GNOME
3 seems, at the very least, to be confusing.

But, I think that's why we normally ask the lawyers to review this sort
of stuff.

Brian