Re: Fedora Trademark Guidelines Revised Draft Comments

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

 



+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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux