FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-29-2012, 05:08 PM
inode0
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

I'm back again and while I tried asking questions and giving feedback
to the earlier draft on the legal list none of my questions were
answered there so this time I'll just give my feedback to the Board
knowing that legal reads this list as well and can take them or leave
them as they deem appropriate. If the Board shares any of my concerns
perhaps they are better situated to work with legal to resolve them.

The current draft for reference is located here

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pchestek/TMGuidelinesDraft#Non-Software_Promotional_Goods

My first concern which still remains in this draft is singling out
Fedora Ambassadors when they are not the only contributors who have
done this work. So the way this reads now is if you are a Fedora
Ambassador this long section with 3 external links applies to you and
if you are doing exactly the same thing but you are not a Fedora
Ambassador it seems you just ask the Board for permission (which
frankly seems to be the path of far less resistance to me). Please
generalize these guidelines so that they apply equally to everyone
producing merchandise for use at Fedora events.

Bullet point #2 quoted here for reference:

* The Goods must be of a Pre-Approved Type (currently that is shirt,
sweatshirt, hat, sticker, temporary tattoo, button, balloon, banner,
poster, cup, or pen/pencil). Items printed on "normal" sized paper are
not considered Non-Software Promotional Goods in this context, and are
acceptable as long as any Trademark and/or Logo use is in compliance
with the Fedora Trademark and/or Logo Guidelines.

This is an interesting list of pre-approved types. Some of these items
have previously been produced, others haven't in my memory. Other
items that have been previously produced are not included on this
list. What qualifies types to be pre-approved, specifically for items
that we have been producing for years? Does "sticker" mean any sort of
sticker or only some particular stickers? Can this list be generalized
at all to include common types that are produced by Red Hat itself and
other corporations for professional events so we don't need have some
process to go through to make a frisbee or a can koozie?

With any list, no matter how we tweak it today, the existence of this
list means we will all be less likely to produce anything not already
on it because that will involve extra work. So my bigger concern here
is why the contributors who have been picking these types without
embarrassing Red Hat or the Fedora Project for years are now not
trusted to continue doing so?

Bullet point #3 quoted here for reference:

* The Goods must use a Fedora Approved Design (as found on the Fedora
Approved Designs page) <LINK>. Fedora Approved Designs are designs
which have been reviewed by Fedora Legal for compliance with the
Fedora Logo Guidelines.

This hides the process behind a missing link making it impossible to
give any feedback regarding whether or to what extent this process
will be a burden. I can ask one question about it though. Why are only
designs used on Fedora Ambassador produced goods subject to this
requirement for a Fedora Legal compliance check?

Bullet point #4 quoted here for reference:

* The Goods must be produced by a Vendor who is listed as a "Good
Vendor" on the "Fedora Non-Software Vendors" wiki page <LINK>. Vendors
marked as "Bad Vendors" must not be used. New Vendors must be added by
the Ambassador to the "Good Vendor" list, and can be then be
immediately used. Ambassadors are expected to move Vendors into the
"Bad Vendor" list if/when they receive poor quality goods or have
extreme difficulties dealing with the Vendor.

This is a deal breaker for me. Red Hat claims no responsibility for
any content on the wiki and expects me to present a vendor in a
negative light on it? Vendors and really any business will get cranky
about things like this and who will they take it up with if they are
cranky enough to bother with it? Red Hat isn't responsible for this
content so who is? Me? No thanks.

The final sentence of this section says "If a Fedora Ambassador wishes
to produce Non-Software Promotion Goods of a New Type or a New Design,
they must first receive approval for the New Type or Design from
Fedora Legal. For details on how to request approval, see <LINK>."

Again a missing link where all the details will be revealed. In the
first draft there was a lot of information about tracking and record
keeping using a trac instance. There is none in this draft currently
but will all of that resurface in the details on this <LINK>?

While I think this entire process is antagonistic toward contributors
who have been helping Fedora present itself in a good light for many
years I don't know how we are really supposed to give feedback when
there isn't full transparency about our obligations under these new
guidelines.

My feathers are admittedly ruffled because I find it absurd that the
work that we have done for years is resulting in our being singled out
as a group that needs to be micro-managed by Fedora Legal. I'm sure
that isn't the perspective of Fedora Legal, at least I hope it isn't.
But I have not been given any reasonable justification for treating
Ambassadors this way and no one else.

While I know Ambassadors would like to have all the missing details
revealed so they can really understand what they are going to be
required to do to comply with these guidelines, what is already
revealed is enough for me to respectfully ask the Board to not approve
them in their current form. The Good Vendor/Bad Vendor bit is enough
by itself to make me stop dead in my tracks.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 03-29-2012, 05:32 PM
Clint Savage
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

+1 to all that John has said. I struggled similarly with each and
every point he makes.

John, would you be so kind as to include all of this on the wiki talk
page as well? I think it's worth having a record there as a central
point.

Thanks,

Clint

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm back again and while I tried asking questions and giving feedback
> to the earlier draft on the legal list none of my questions were
> answered there so this time I'll just give my feedback to the Board
> knowing that legal reads this list as well and can take them or leave
> them as they deem appropriate. If the Board shares any of my concerns
> perhaps they are better situated to work with legal to resolve them.
>
> The current draft for reference is located here
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pchestek/TMGuidelinesDraft#Non-Software_Promotional_Goods
>
> My first concern which still remains in this draft is singling out
> Fedora Ambassadors when they are not the only contributors who have
> done this work. So the way this reads now is if you are a Fedora
> Ambassador this long section with 3 external links applies to you and
> if you are doing exactly the same thing but you are not a Fedora
> Ambassador it seems you just ask the Board for permission (which
> frankly seems to be the path of far less resistance to me). Please
> generalize these guidelines so that they apply equally to everyone
> producing merchandise for use at Fedora events.
>
> Bullet point #2 quoted here for reference:
>
> * The Goods must be of a Pre-Approved Type (currently that is shirt,
> sweatshirt, hat, sticker, temporary tattoo, button, balloon, banner,
> poster, cup, or pen/pencil). Items printed on "normal" sized paper are
> not considered Non-Software Promotional Goods in this context, and are
> acceptable as long as any Trademark and/or Logo use is in compliance
> with the Fedora Trademark and/or Logo Guidelines.
>
> This is an interesting list of pre-approved types. Some of these items
> have previously been produced, others haven't in my memory. Other
> items that have been previously produced are not included on this
> list. What qualifies types to be pre-approved, specifically for items
> that we have been producing for years? Does "sticker" mean any sort of
> sticker or only some particular stickers? Can this list be generalized
> at all to include common types that are produced by Red Hat itself and
> other corporations for professional events so we don't need have some
> process to go through to make a frisbee or a can koozie?
>
> With any list, no matter how we tweak it today, the existence of this
> list means we will all be less likely to produce anything not already
> on it because that will involve extra work. So my bigger concern here
> is why the contributors who have been picking these types without
> embarrassing Red Hat or the Fedora Project for years are now not
> trusted to continue doing so?
>
> Bullet point #3 quoted here for reference:
>
> * The Goods must use a Fedora Approved Design (as found on the Fedora
> Approved Designs page) <LINK>. Fedora Approved Designs are designs
> which have been reviewed by Fedora Legal for compliance with the
> Fedora Logo Guidelines.
>
> This hides the process behind a missing link making it impossible to
> give any feedback regarding whether or to what extent this process
> will be a burden. I can ask one question about it though. Why are only
> designs used on Fedora Ambassador produced goods subject to this
> requirement for a Fedora Legal compliance check?
>
> Bullet point #4 quoted here for reference:
>
> * The Goods must be produced by a Vendor who is listed as a "Good
> Vendor" on the "Fedora Non-Software Vendors" wiki page <LINK>. Vendors
> marked as "Bad Vendors" must not be used. New Vendors must be added by
> the Ambassador to the "Good Vendor" list, and can be then be
> immediately used. Ambassadors are expected to move Vendors into the
> "Bad Vendor" list if/when they receive poor quality goods or have
> extreme difficulties dealing with the Vendor.
>
> This is a deal breaker for me. Red Hat claims no responsibility for
> any content on the wiki and expects me to present a vendor in a
> negative light on it? Vendors and really any business will get cranky
> about things like this and who will they take it up with if they are
> cranky enough to bother with it? Red Hat isn't responsible for this
> content so who is? Me? No thanks.
>
> The final sentence of this section says "If a Fedora Ambassador wishes
> to produce Non-Software Promotion Goods of a New Type or a New Design,
> they must first receive approval for the New Type or Design from
> Fedora Legal. For details on how to request approval, see <LINK>."
>
> Again a missing link where all the details will be revealed. In the
> first draft there was a lot of information about tracking and record
> keeping using a trac instance. There is none in this draft currently
> but will all of that resurface in the details on this <LINK>?
>
> While I think this entire process is antagonistic toward contributors
> who have been helping Fedora present itself in a good light for many
> years I don't know how we are really supposed to give feedback when
> there isn't full transparency about our obligations under these new
> guidelines.
>
> My feathers are admittedly ruffled because I find it absurd that the
> work that we have done for years is resulting in our being singled out
> as a group that needs to be micro-managed by Fedora Legal. I'm sure
> that isn't the perspective of Fedora Legal, at least I hope it isn't.
> But I have not been given any reasonable justification for treating
> Ambassadors this way and no one else.
>
> While I know Ambassadors would like to have all the missing details
> revealed so they can really understand what they are going to be
> required to do to comply with these guidelines, what is already
> revealed is enough for me to respectfully ask the Board to not approve
> them in their current form. The Good Vendor/Bad Vendor bit is enough
> by itself to make me stop dead in my tracks.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 03-30-2012, 03:05 AM
Tom Callaway
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

On 03/29/2012 01:08 PM, inode0 wrote:

> My feathers are admittedly ruffled because I find it absurd that the
> work that we have done for years is resulting in our being singled out
> as a group that needs to be micro-managed by Fedora Legal. I'm sure
> that isn't the perspective of Fedora Legal, at least I hope it isn't.
> But I have not been given any reasonable justification for treating
> Ambassadors this way and no one else.

Sometimes I'm rather stunned at how people jump to the conclusion that
they're being singled out as victims.

In this case, the opposite is true. The intention is that Fedora
Ambassadors are especially entrusted to produce branded non-software
goods. Red Hat is not willing or able to say "anyone can produce branded
non-software goods", because that is what is known as "naked licensing",
and that adversely affects Red Hat's capacity to retain and defend the
trademark. Red Hat also must maintain quality control and "adequate
supervision" of the production of the branded non-software goods.

I spent a lot of time working with Pam (in Red Hat Legal) to simplify
the requirements that must be met, and they boiled down to these three:

* We need to have a measure of quality control over the vendors that we
use to produce the goods. This simplified down to: We shouldn't be using
vendors who provide a poor quality product or who are otherwise
extremely hostile to deal with. We also can assume that all vendors are
good until proven otherwise. Lastly, we can assume that Ambassadors are
the best people to let us (Red Hat and Fedora) know when a vendor is
"bad" and should not be used. The practical expectation here is that
most (if not all) vendors will never be flagged as "bad", and that will
only be necessary in extreme cases.

* We need to not have a blank check on the sort of items that can be
produced. For example, it would almost certainly be unacceptable for the
Fedora logo to be used on a condom. We can't effectively generate a
blacklist of all of the items that would not be acceptable, so we chose
to generate a whitelist instead. If there are items missing from the
whitelist, please let us know. The fact that the whitelist contains
items that have not been widely produced (or perhaps not at all) is a
reflection of our effort to try to be as extensive as possible.

* We need to have some method to ensure that the logo is used in a way
that is in compliance with the trademark and logo guidelines. We talked
about a lot of ways to do this, and we decided to try to go with the
following logic:

We generate a list of all of the designs that have been used in existing
branded non-software goods and provide those designs in an easy to parse
page, which contains those designs in as many different formats as
possible (sticker, shirt, hat, balloon, etc). Everything on this list is
known to be okay and Ambassadors can simply use those designs on
acceptable types of goods as they need to.

Ambassadors will be able to authenticate through FAS and get special
access to download high-quality, pre-formatted files for the designs on
this list.

Any current designs which don't meet the trademark/logo guidelines will
be cleaned up so that they do meet the guidelines and added to this list.

We've already reached out to the Ambassadors to try to generate this
list, and we've been working with Mo and Fedora Design to try to make it
as comprehensive as possible.

If an Ambassador wants to make a new design, it just needs to be quickly
reviewed for compliance with the Trademark/Logo guidelines (should never
take more than 2 business days). The people doing this review will be
the same people who currently process the logo queue (Ian, Mo, me). All
approved designs will be added to the list and can be used by
Ambassadors without needing to seek additional approval.

The same process also holds for new types of goods. The Fedora Board
tasked the responsibility of reviewing approved types of goods to Fedora
Legal. Should never take more than 2 business days for Fedora Legal to
determine acceptability of goods, and in all cases, the Board will be
notified of approvals/rejections of new types, in case it disagrees.

******

So there you have it. I hope this makes it clear, but if you (or anyone)
has a different model which meets the above minimum criteria, we are
open to considering it.

Also, if there is a different subset of Fedora Community members that we
should be trusting with this responsibility, please suggest that as
well. Keep in mind that the answer cannot be "everyone".

Thanks,

~tom

==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 03-30-2012, 05:36 AM
David Nalley
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 01:08 PM, inode0 wrote:
>
>> My feathers are admittedly ruffled because I find it absurd that the
>> work that we have done for years is resulting in our being singled out
>> as a group that needs to be micro-managed by Fedora Legal. I'm sure
>> that isn't the perspective of Fedora Legal, at least I hope it isn't.
>> But I have not been given any reasonable justification for treating
>> Ambassadors this way and no one else.
>
> Sometimes I'm rather stunned at how people jump to the conclusion that
> they're being singled out as victims.

So let me explain why I think folks are irked at all of this.

Contributors, mostly Ambassadors, have for many years been producing
Fedora swag. They've often times been cited for the higher-quality,
less expensive swag by the Red Hat-employed Fedora leadership. They've
been inherently trusted, and even encouraged to take on that role by
that same Red Hat-employed Fedora leadership (speaking corporately,
not of a single individual). None of this was done in an effort to
subvert RHT control of it's marks, or to cause problems, but rather
with the urging of folks inside Red Hat. This isn't to say that
everything has been perfect, there's certainly been problem swag, but
the same could be said of Red Hat-produced Fedora (and Red Hat for
that matter) swag as well.

Now, the trademark guidelines seek to solve some 'problems' - which
are listed as:

* RHT can't let anyone do what they want - inappropriate things might
happen like Fedora-logoed condoms.

* RHT has to control quality - we can't have sloppy swag ruining the
Fedora mark's good name.

What that really gets interpreted as is: RHT thinks that Fedora
contributors a) don't care about, and can't be trusted with the Fedora
brand and would engage in activities that would sully it's reputation.
b) RHT thinks that there are currently problems that are so egregious
with what we are doing now that they must be fixed despite the fact
that it's been going on with few complaints for many years.

I despise the use of analogies in such situations, but sadly I don't
have the wit of Konstantin Ryabitsev [0], so, lets s/swag/packages/g:

Despite the fact that the Fedora packagers have been producing
generally good quality packages for years, Red Hat has decided that to
control quality, package reviews must be performed by specially
anointed Red Hat employees. Otherwise we might have packages that are
of poor quality, or that are clearly inappropriate and sully the
Fedora brand.

So rather than a legal issue this is viewed by folks as being told
that they are clearly doing such a poor job that very well paid and
busy lawyers and engineering managers see it as worthy of spending
copious amounts of time solving what clearly must be a terrible
situation (the quality issue continues to be mentioned, as well as
things that would reflect poorly upon Fedora like logoed condoms).

How about this:
Red Hat acknowledges that Fedora contributors are generally not
idiots, generally have Fedora's best interest at heart and we want to
make sure they can get things done in the furtherance of Fedora's
goals. At the same time we have a desire to protect the Fedora marks,
and sadly the trademark system is ill equipped to deal with such an
open source project. Here's what we have to do to satisfy both ends:
Red Hat will assume no mental defect, and no malice - you've been
doing awesome work for years, but we need to be notified when approved
swag is manufactured. We also trust that you won't hand out
defective, low quality swag, and would alert us and the rest of the
community to such problems.
We also generally trust your judgement for what kind swag to produce,
but we need to be able to demonstrate that we have some control, so
please notify us in advance before new designs are registered. We
request that you give us two days notice. If you don't hear back from
us in that time period, consider that tacit consent, though we will
try and at least ACK your request, but do understand that however
unlikely, we can veto the design. (though we'll try and assist you in
rectifying the design to comply with usage guidelines)

That's essentially the same work flow, except it a) defaults to
trusting contributors; and b) puts the onus on RHT for vetoing designs
rather than having the onus on contributors to gain RHT's blessing.

--David



[0] http://lwn.net/Articles/83360/
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 03-30-2012, 06:03 AM
inode0
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 01:08 PM, inode0 wrote:
>
>> My feathers are admittedly ruffled because I find it absurd that the
>> work that we have done for years is resulting in our being singled out
>> as a group that needs to be micro-managed by Fedora Legal. I'm sure
>> that isn't the perspective of Fedora Legal, at least I hope it isn't.
>> But I have not been given any reasonable justification for treating
>> Ambassadors this way and no one else.
>
> Sometimes I'm rather stunned at how people jump to the conclusion that
> they're being singled out as victims.
>
> In this case, the opposite is true. The intention is that Fedora
> Ambassadors are especially entrusted to produce branded non-software
> goods. Red Hat is not willing or able to say "anyone can produce branded
> non-software goods", because that is what is known as "naked licensing",
> and that adversely affects Red Hat's capacity to retain and defend the
> trademark. Red Hat also must maintain quality control and "adequate
> supervision" of the production of the branded non-software goods.

Five weeks ago I explained why I didn't want this section to single
out ambassadors as non-ambassador contributors also have done this
work with us. I asked if there was a way we could "describe these
sections a bit more generally to not exclude people who do make
contributions this way who are not in the ambassador group when they
do it." I did not ask that anyone be allowed to do it. I don't think I
"jumped" to a conclusion here, I patiently waited weeks for the
explanation that arrived today and, yes, I expressed some frustration
based on my being in the dark about why this section had an ambassador
only focus. Transparency is a great way to avoid confusion and
mistaken impressions from forming in the minds of those who care about
the work they do and who have concerns about changes being made that
directly affect their contributions to the project.

Can we just say we had a communication failure and move forward? I
appreciate the substance of your reply today. It is very helpful and
provides a basis from which to work productively toward a solution.

> I spent a lot of time working with Pam (in Red Hat Legal) to simplify
> the requirements that must be met, and they boiled down to these three:
>
> * We need to have a measure of quality control over the vendors that we
> use to produce the goods. This simplified down to: We shouldn't be using
> vendors who provide a poor quality product or who are otherwise
> extremely hostile to deal with. We also can assume that all vendors are
> good until proven otherwise. Lastly, we can assume that Ambassadors are
> the best people to let us (Red Hat and Fedora) know when a vendor is
> "bad" and should not be used. The practical expectation here is that
> most (if not all) vendors will never be flagged as "bad", and that will
> only be necessary in extreme cases.

I really have no problem with the above. In fact, we have mostly kept
track of vendors we have used and we do note vendors we've had
experiences with that were problematic. That falls into the
institutional knowledge sort of thing now though as we don't document
it. We haven't advertised which vendors we don't intend to use again
in public and that is my only objection to the wiki Good Vendor/Bad
Vendor section. I don't mind reporting bad vendors to you or to Red
Hat or to the Fedora Project. Institutional knowledge only goes so far
and it would be better to document the problems we have with vendors
and I'm comfortable doing that in a non-public way.

> * We need to not have a blank check on the sort of items that can be
> produced. For example, it would almost certainly be unacceptable for the
> Fedora logo to be used on a condom. We can't effectively generate a
> blacklist of all of the items that would not be acceptable, so we chose
> to generate a whitelist instead. If there are items missing from the
> whitelist, please let us know. The fact that the whitelist contains
> items that have not been widely produced (or perhaps not at all) is a
> reflection of our effort to try to be as extensive as possible.

The suggestion that we might make condoms with a Fedora Logo on them
doesn't make me feel trusted. Just as a blacklist can't include every
preposterous item no whitelist can include every reasonable item. My
preference would be that you say this group has demonstrated good
judgment in selecting merchandise types for the past five years and we
will trust their continued good judgment until such time as they screw
up. If that can't happen and if the process of adding one is simply
dropping you note asking you to add "usb sticks" to the list then I'm
fine with doing that too. How or what is involved in getting a new
type approved was not specified in the draft beyond getting approval
from Fedora Legal by following some process that would be linked to
later so I had no way to know what that process might entail.

> * We need to have some method to ensure that the logo is used in a way
> that is in compliance with the trademark and logo guidelines. We talked
> about a lot of ways to do this, and we decided to try to go with the
> following logic:
>
> We generate a list of all of the designs that have been used in existing
> branded non-software goods and provide those designs in an easy to parse
> page, which contains those designs in as many different formats as
> possible (sticker, shirt, hat, balloon, etc). Everything on this list is
> known to be okay and Ambassadors can simply use those designs on
> acceptable types of goods as they need to.
>
> Ambassadors will be able to authenticate through FAS and get special
> access to download high-quality, pre-formatted files for the designs on
> this list.
>
> Any current designs which don't meet the trademark/logo guidelines will
> be cleaned up so that they do meet the guidelines and added to this list.
>
> We've already reached out to the Ambassadors to try to generate this
> list, and we've been working with Mo and Fedora Design to try to make it
> as comprehensive as possible.
>
> If an Ambassador wants to make a new design, it just needs to be quickly
> reviewed for compliance with the Trademark/Logo guidelines (should never
> take more than 2 business days). The people doing this review will be
> the same people who currently process the logo queue (Ian, Mo, me). All
> approved designs will be added to the list and can be used by
> Ambassadors without needing to seek additional approval.

I'm not really sure how well this will work for me. I'm not against
trying it but honestly as someone not very inclined to producing my
own designs I normally show up with an idea and a template from a
vendor and ask Mo to make it happen for me. I'm not sure I could wade
through piles of variously formatted designs and be successful finding
what I would need. Maybe it can be cleverly organized so even I can
find stuff though.

> The same process also holds for new types of goods. The Fedora Board
> tasked the responsibility of reviewing approved types of goods to Fedora
> Legal. Should never take more than 2 business days for Fedora Legal to
> determine acceptability of goods, and in all cases, the Board will be
> notified of approvals/rejections of new types, in case it disagrees.

This is nice to know too. The switch from asking the Board like pretty
much everyone else to asking Fedora Legal was a curious thing to me
without this explanation of it.

> ******
>
> So there you have it. I hope this makes it clear, but if you (or anyone)
> has a different model which meets the above minimum criteria, we are
> open to considering it.
>
> Also, if there is a different subset of Fedora Community members that we
> should be trusting with this responsibility, please suggest that as
> well. Keep in mind that the answer cannot be "everyone".

If Fedora Community members or Fedora contributors is too broad I
don't know if I have a suggestion. Even the ambassador group is very
broad when compared to the small number of ambassadors who have done
this work. Aside from a different FAS group I don't really have a
suggestion for capturing the subset of the community who contributes
in this way.

Thanks Tom for the explanation tonight. I'm a lot less worried about
where this will end up now than I was for the past weeks while I was
clueless about what was actually needed from the legal side. If we
replace <LINK> here and there with drop a note to legal@ or drop a
copy of your design to logos@ or something similar the draft would be
less scary to people.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 03-30-2012, 03:05 PM
Tom Callaway
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

On 03/30/2012 02:03 AM, inode0 wrote:
> Can we just say we had a communication failure and move forward? I
> appreciate the substance of your reply today. It is very helpful and
> provides a basis from which to work productively toward a solution.

Agreed. I think part of why we drafted around "Ambassadors-only" was
specifically because we could not identify a better subset of
contributors that should have these permissions. I also suspect strongly
that the very act of being interested in producing non-software Fedora
branded goods for giveaways probably qualifies them to be Ambassadors.

>> > * We need to have a measure of quality control over the vendors that we
>> > use to produce the goods. This simplified down to: We shouldn't be using
>> > vendors who provide a poor quality product or who are otherwise
>> > extremely hostile to deal with. We also can assume that all vendors are
>> > good until proven otherwise. Lastly, we can assume that Ambassadors are
>> > the best people to let us (Red Hat and Fedora) know when a vendor is
>> > "bad" and should not be used. The practical expectation here is that
>> > most (if not all) vendors will never be flagged as "bad", and that will
>> > only be necessary in extreme cases.
> I really have no problem with the above. In fact, we have mostly kept
> track of vendors we have used and we do note vendors we've had
> experiences with that were problematic. That falls into the
> institutional knowledge sort of thing now though as we don't document
> it. We haven't advertised which vendors we don't intend to use again
> in public and that is my only objection to the wiki Good Vendor/Bad
> Vendor section. I don't mind reporting bad vendors to you or to Red
> Hat or to the Fedora Project. Institutional knowledge only goes so far
> and it would be better to document the problems we have with vendors
> and I'm comfortable doing that in a non-public way.

Well, okay. The problem with the "non-public" way is that there is no
good way for other Ambassadors to know when a vendor shouldn't be used,
unless we require all Ambassadors to pre-clear their vendor with the
keeper of the "bad list". If this list was managed on a page where Red
Hat explicitly took responsibility for the content, would that be
acceptable?

>> > * We need to not have a blank check on the sort of items that can be
>> > produced. For example, it would almost certainly be unacceptable for the
>> > Fedora logo to be used on a condom. We can't effectively generate a
>> > blacklist of all of the items that would not be acceptable, so we chose
>> > to generate a whitelist instead. If there are items missing from the
>> > whitelist, please let us know. The fact that the whitelist contains
>> > items that have not been widely produced (or perhaps not at all) is a
>> > reflection of our effort to try to be as extensive as possible.
> The suggestion that we might make condoms with a Fedora Logo on them
> doesn't make me feel trusted. Just as a blacklist can't include every
> preposterous item no whitelist can include every reasonable item. My
> preference would be that you say this group has demonstrated good
> judgment in selecting merchandise types for the past five years and we
> will trust their continued good judgment until such time as they screw
> up. If that can't happen and if the process of adding one is simply
> dropping you note asking you to add "usb sticks" to the list then I'm
> fine with doing that too. How or what is involved in getting a new
> type approved was not specified in the draft beyond getting approval
> from Fedora Legal by following some process that would be linked to
> later so I had no way to know what that process might entail.

I used the condom example specifically for a few reasons:

* Someone actually proposed it at Red Hat a few years ago and went so
far as to generate a mock advertisement.
* I wanted to point out something that the vast majority of sensible
humans would agree is not in the best interest of the Fedora name, but
something that is at least possible that some ambassador somewhere might
someday think is okay.

The process for amending the whitelist should be extremely
straightforward. In fact, it probably makes sense to separate the
whitelist from the TM guidelines. Another goal in the TM guidelines was
to try to keep it as static as possible, and have it refer to separate
pages relating to process or lists that could be dynamic. This is also
why <LINK> appears all over the place. (My previous draft had it all
pulled in, but we agreed that separating the dynamic items makes sense.)

I describe the "add new type to whitelist" process below, but the plan
was to use trac for this to ensure they do not get lost.

Last, but not least, usb keys should definitely be on the whitelist, so
I've already amended the draft for that.

> I'm not really sure how well this will work for me. I'm not against
> trying it but honestly as someone not very inclined to producing my
> own designs I normally show up with an idea and a template from a
> vendor and ask Mo to make it happen for me. I'm not sure I could wade
> through piles of variously formatted designs and be successful finding
> what I would need. Maybe it can be cleverly organized so even I can
> find stuff though.

That same process would still be valid, it would just be considered a
"new design", and at the end of its creation, it would be added to the
list. Mo has been working on a layout where the previously approved
designs are presented visually in a gallery or table setup. Each
pre-approved design would be given a number for quick and easy
identification. Basically, think of it as a catalog of stuff that
ambassadors can look through, then if they see a design they like, they
can click the corresponding link, and it will prompt them to FAS auth.
When they FAS auth, it will check for success and that the user is in
the Ambassador group, then let them download the high quality
preformatted design files to give to the vendor to make it into a
t-shirt or a sticker or whatever.

> If Fedora Community members or Fedora contributors is too broad I
> don't know if I have a suggestion. Even the ambassador group is very
> broad when compared to the small number of ambassadors who have done
> this work. Aside from a different FAS group I don't really have a
> suggestion for capturing the subset of the community who contributes
> in this way.

I don't necessarily have a problem with creating a different FAS group
for this, but everyone involved in this process (me, mo, robyn, pam) all
agreed that we trust the entire Fedora Ambassador group with this
responsibility, so there is no need to limit it further or create some
sort of separate vetting process.

~tom

==
Fedora Project
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 03-30-2012, 04:24 PM
Pam Chestek
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

David Nalley wrote:

What that really gets interpreted as is: RHT thinks that Fedora
contributors a) don't care about, and can't be trusted with the Fedora
brand and would engage in activities that would sully it's reputation.
b) RHT thinks that there are currently problems that are so egregious
with what we are doing now that they must be fixed despite the fact
that it's been going on with few complaints for many years.
As Red Hat Legal, I would like to address this point. I think that
Fedora does a fabulous job managing its brand, better than many
companies do. The problem is that, as you mentioned in a different part
of your email, trademark law is ill-equipped to deal with the
organizational and management structure of an open source project.
Trademark law is used to traditional companies, where you have
employees, subsidiaries, licenses, etc.


It is well-established that the trademark owner has to control the
quality of goods and services with which its trademark is used, and that
not exercising adequate control can potentially result (as Tom
mentioned) in a finding of "naked licensing," which means that the
trademark is invalidated. This is clearly not an outcome that the
Fedora community can allow to happen. The elephant in the room is the
Freecycle case, which you can read here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/11/24/08-16382.pdf.
In my personal opinion it's a horrible, wrong decision, and I've railed
against it personally
(http://www.propertyintangible.com/2010/11/ninth-circuit-ignores-law-again.html),
but it is the current state of the law.


So I'm left with having to do some line-drawing. I have to be able, if
in court, to say "these people have a special relationship with Fedora
that we believe gives us a basis for entrusting to them the judgment on
whether a product is of sufficient quality that it can be called
'Fedora,'" along with being able to demonstrate that they have, indeed,
exercised good judgment. I believe I can defend Ambassadors in that role
- they have had a long-standing relationship with Fedora and have
demonstrated their understanding of brand values. I am stuck at where
else I can draw that line (other than more protectionist). The
Freecycle case demonstrates that just being a participant in a loose
common-interest community isn't good enough, so allowing any community
member to do as he or she pleases is not a position I can defend in court.


So the decision making has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of trust
in the Fedora community. I think the Fedora Community does an awesome
job, but I have to also be able to defend the Fedora trademark if
challenged under a very unforgiving legal standard.


Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Sr. IP Attorney
Red Hat, Inc.


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board






References:

Re: Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments
From: Pam Chestek <pchestek@redhat.com>
 
Old 03-30-2012, 04:48 PM
inode0
 
Default Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 02:03 AM, inode0 wrote:
>> Can we just say we had a communication failure and move forward? I
>> appreciate the substance of your reply today. It is very helpful and
>> provides a basis from which to work productively toward a solution.
>
> Agreed. I think part of why we drafted around "Ambassadors-only" was
> specifically because we could not identify a better subset of
> contributors that should have these permissions. I also suspect strongly
> that the very act of being interested in producing non-software Fedora
> branded goods for giveaways probably qualifies them to be Ambassadors.

Let me give you one real example. The person who did the original work
creating the case badges everyone loves and that we have ordered
multiple times is not an ambassador. But he volunteered to do the work
under the supervision of FAmNA, specifically with me walking him
through the steps we follow. He had a vendor he had already used in
other projects who produced very high quality case badges so was
ideally suited to help us in this one small area. I don't think he had
any interest in going through a rather lengthy mentoring process
required to join the ambassadors group just to contribute in this one
way. He offered to do this for us as a thank you for our help working
with him organizing a new community open source conference in New
Mexico which sadly didn't work out in the end.

Because I think his contribution was immensely valuable I want to
avoid setting ourselves up in some way that we lose out on
opportunities like that one. Five years ago joining the ambassadors
group was very easy, basically just ask. Today it is far more involved
as we mentor each new applicant before they are allowed to join the
group for various reasons that don't really matter in this context.

>>> > * We need to have a measure of quality control over the vendors that we
>>> > use to produce the goods. This simplified down to: We shouldn't be using
>>> > vendors who provide a poor quality product or who are otherwise
>>> > extremely hostile to deal with. We also can assume that all vendors are
>>> > good until proven otherwise. Lastly, we can assume that Ambassadors are
>>> > the best people to let us (Red Hat and Fedora) know when a vendor is
>>> > "bad" and should not be used. The practical expectation here is that
>>> > most (if not all) vendors will never be flagged as "bad", and that will
>>> > only be necessary in extreme cases.
>> I really have no problem with the above. In fact, we have mostly kept
>> track of vendors we have used and we do note vendors we've had
>> experiences with that were problematic. That falls into the
>> institutional knowledge sort of thing now though as we don't document
>> it. We haven't advertised which vendors we don't intend to use again
>> in public and that is my only objection to the wiki Good Vendor/Bad
>> Vendor section. I don't mind reporting bad vendors to you or to Red
>> Hat or to the Fedora Project. Institutional knowledge only goes so far
>> and it would be better to document the problems we have with vendors
>> and I'm comfortable doing that in a non-public way.
>
> Well, okay. The problem with the "non-public" way is that there is no
> good way for other Ambassadors to know when a vendor shouldn't be used,
> unless we require all Ambassadors to pre-clear their vendor with the
> keeper of the "bad list". If this list was managed on a page where Red
> Hat explicitly took responsibility for the content, would that be
> acceptable?

Ambassadors in my experience don't just go off and make swag now. They
bring their ideas to a group like FAmNA and normally first find out if
we would be willing to fund producing the item. The funding approval
mechanism serves us well in several ways. We, FAmNA for example, work
with the ambassador as he works through the process and can and do
impart information about vendors. It is possible that something might
slip through and a vendor we had a previous bad experience with might
be used again. I don't recall that happening but it could.

Aside from being a potential target from an offended vendor another
reason I dislike the public list so much is that what will happen is
that if we have a single initial bad experience with a vendor we are
going to toss them overboard. It may be a great vendor and we just
were the unlucky 1 in 10,000 customers who had a bad experience. I
don't want to tar such a vendor in public without much more knowledge
about the vendor than what we will have from one experience using
them.

The good list bothers me a little too because it seems like a public
endorsement of vendors we either haven't used or of vendors we
normally only have slight experience using.

If we will need to authenticate against FAS to get designs would it be
that much bother to do the same to review/modify the vendor lists so
we don't appear to be openly endorsing or belittling vendors?

>>> > * We need to not have a blank check on the sort of items that can be
>>> > produced. For example, it would almost certainly be unacceptable for the
>>> > Fedora logo to be used on a condom. We can't effectively generate a
>>> > blacklist of all of the items that would not be acceptable, so we chose
>>> > to generate a whitelist instead. If there are items missing from the
>>> > whitelist, please let us know. The fact that the whitelist contains
>>> > items that have not been widely produced (or perhaps not at all) is a
>>> > reflection of our effort to try to be as extensive as possible.
>> The suggestion that we might make condoms with a Fedora Logo on them
>> doesn't make me feel trusted. Just as a blacklist can't include every
>> preposterous item no whitelist can include every reasonable item. My
>> preference would be that you say this group has demonstrated good
>> judgment in selecting merchandise types for the past five years and we
>> will trust their continued good judgment until such time as they screw
>> up. If that can't happen and if the process of adding one is simply
>> dropping you note asking you to add "usb sticks" to the list then I'm
>> fine with doing that too. How or what is involved in getting a new
>> type approved was not specified in the draft beyond getting approval
>> from Fedora Legal by following some process that would be linked to
>> later so I had no way to know what that process might entail.
>
> I used the condom example specifically for a few reasons:
>
> * Someone actually proposed it at Red Hat a few years ago and went so
> far as to generate a mock advertisement.
> * I wanted to point out something that the vast majority of sensible
> humans would agree is not in the best interest of the Fedora name, but
> something that is at least possible that some ambassador somewhere might
> someday think is okay.

I can say with certainty that there are ambassadors who I know who
think items we would reject out of hand would be fun to make. This is
another place that the funding approval mechanism comes in as a
safeguard. There are enough sensible ambassadors in FAmNA and I'm sure
in the other funding decision points (FAmSCo and the rest) to prevent
such items from ever being approved or produced.

> The process for amending the whitelist should be extremely
> straightforward. In fact, it probably makes sense to separate the
> whitelist from the TM guidelines. Another goal in the TM guidelines was
> to try to keep it as static as possible, and have it refer to separate
> pages relating to process or lists that could be dynamic. This is also
> why <LINK> appears all over the place. (My previous draft had it all
> pulled in, but we agreed that separating the dynamic items makes sense.)
>
> I describe the "add new type to whitelist" process below, but the plan
> was to use trac for this to ensure they do not get lost.
>
> Last, but not least, usb keys should definitely be on the whitelist, so
> I've already amended the draft for that.
>
>> I'm not really sure how well this will work for me. I'm not against
>> trying it but honestly as someone not very inclined to producing my
>> own designs I normally show up with an idea and a template from a
>> vendor and ask Mo to make it happen for me. I'm not sure I could wade
>> through piles of variously formatted designs and be successful finding
>> what I would need. Maybe it can be cleverly organized so even I can
>> find stuff though.
>
> That same process would still be valid, it would just be considered a
> "new design", and at the end of its creation, it would be added to the
> list. Mo has been working on a layout where the previously approved
> designs are presented visually in a gallery or table setup. Each
> pre-approved design would be given a number for quick and easy
> identification. Basically, think of it as a catalog of stuff that
> ambassadors can look through, then if they see a design they like, they
> can click the corresponding link, and it will prompt them to FAS auth.
> When they FAS auth, it will check for success and that the user is in
> the Ambassador group, then let them download the high quality
> preformatted design files to give to the vendor to make it into a
> t-shirt or a sticker or whatever.
>
>> If Fedora Community members or Fedora contributors is too broad I
>> don't know if I have a suggestion. Even the ambassador group is very
>> broad when compared to the small number of ambassadors who have done
>> this work. Aside from a different FAS group I don't really have a
>> suggestion for capturing the subset of the community who contributes
>> in this way.
>
> I don't necessarily have a problem with creating a different FAS group
> for this, but everyone involved in this process (me, mo, robyn, pam) all
> agreed that we trust the entire Fedora Ambassador group with this
> responsibility, so there is no need to limit it further or create some
> sort of separate vetting process.

While I trust the entire Fedora Ambassador group I don't necessary
trust every individual member of that group. With the additional
safeguards provided by funding decisions I'm comfortable with that but
as funding authority is becoming more distributed those safeguards
also become less effective. And a separate group that is easy to add
members to from other groups like our friend who made the case badges
for us appeals to me. I'm happy to let people think about this some,
maybe there are other solutions.

John
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:24 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org