[haiku-inc] Re: RFC: additions to Trademark policy
- From: "Jorge G. Mare" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-inc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:07:07 -0700
Hi Jonas,
Jonas Sundström wrote:
Jorge G. Mare "Jorge G. Mare" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
What is not true is that the NPO has the same influence over both
[code and trademarks]
; Haiku Inc. does not involved itself in the decisions regarding
the code, and it is the developers who decide, not the BOD. So
you see the double standard.
I understand that it can be seen as unfair that our open project has
put final authority over trademark policy in the hands of a closed
entity, meant to be a silent keeper of copyright but an active defender
of trademarks.
I would like to point out that the NPO has no power over development
beyond funding it. The source code license and community dynamics make
it pointless to try to dictate rules for development. This independence
goes both ways. The developers have no real power over the NPO.
Please, look at the BOD members: with one exception, the NPO is fully
formed by developers. So this notion that the developers cannot
influence the NPO is far from reality. They are one and the same, and
thus have a lot of influence both ways. Not that is bad per se, but
saying the contrary is spreading a notion that is simply not real.
IANAL and I don't know whether the NPO can delegate trademark policy
decisions. Short of providing every brand/trademark work you create
with a detailed license, what can you do beyond trying to influence
the NPO?
(Perhaps refusing to assign copyright to Haiku Inc, but they could
possibly deny you permission to use the word "Haiku".)
I am not talking legalities. I am saying that in the same way that the
license for the code was chosen by consensus, so should the trademark
policy (because both regulate project assets).
...
You can't have a bullet-proof policy, but you can try to cover
the most likely scenarios, which is what most open source projects
do.
...
Besides being a burden for the NPO (it would most likely require
to ask everytime),
I can understand the wish to avoid bureaucracy, but the only way
to avoid loopholes is to make it a case-by-case process.
Personally I don't mind a lax trademark policy, but the most prominent
committers seem to prefer a more strict policy, especially using the
trademarks to put some pressure on bad distro makers.
That should read "the most prominent contributors of code" instead.
Anyway, you make my point again, that the developers have a strong
influence on what the NPO does, and that the other prominent
contributors don't count, at least not at the same level.
I don't like the approach that you propose because it gives
too much discretionary powers to the NPO, provides no mechanism of
influence, and lacks transparency (no checks and balances whatsoever).
I think the NPO has full discretionary powers presently and as long
as there is no delegation in this area there is no use trying to
sugarcoat it. I assume you want the NPO to delegate this to (a group
within) the project?
I am not suggesting delegation, but some mechanism that would allow
*real* influence by those contributors who will be affected by the
decision. One would think that an RFC would be that mechanism, but when
reading some the responses and the dictatorial "if you don't like it
stop contributing" position that some here seem to hold, it is quite
obvious that the NPO/devs have already made up their mind of what it's
going to be, and th rather than a real RFC this is more like an RFA
(request for agreement).
That being the case, there is really no point in providing any input as
it is going to be ignored anyway, so I rest my case.
Cheers,
--
Jorge/aka Koki
Website: http://haikuzone.net
RSS: http://haikuzone.net/rss.xml
Other related posts:
