Trademark license agreement status

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:16:27PM -0400, Scott Glaser wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:42 -0400
> "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > The only question I have about the questions -- heh, sorry -- is on
> > "What is content control?".  From my search through the agreement, I
> > only see that phrase used as a heading/title for a paragraph.  The
> > paragraph itself therefore defines what content control means in the
> > agreement, so I'm not sure what your question means here.  Does that
> > make any sense?  Can you suggest a better title?
> 
> Trademark Control: might be a better title for that section as it is
> what is being discussed.
> 
> However I also believe that was an incomplete thought I jotted down,
> I meant to make this two points:
> 
> 4. What would be defined as objectionable by the Licensor?
> 
> I think that this is self explanatory we need to know what would be
> considered objectionable by the Licensor.

There may be a common legal definition for "objectionable" here, I'm
not sure.  I'm certain the intention is not for it to mean "things
with which Red Hat might disagree," and that Pam will help clarify
this.  Quashing open discussion is not a good way to grow the Fedora
brand. ;-)

> 5. If Licensor determines that Licensee is using the Trademarks
> improperly, and/or in connection with goods or services not covered
> under this Agreement, Licensor will notify Licensee, and Licensee will
> remedy the improper use within two (2) business days following receipt
> of such notice from Licensor. 
> 
> What is meant by improper usage of the trademark and/or in
> connection with goods or services not covered under this Agreement?
> Does that mean if the Licensor does not agree with the content of
> our site based on the topic heading (Content Control) that the
> license could be revoked?  Or if we are not following the trademark
> guidelines to the letter that the license could be revoked?  Keep in
> mind this applies to many of the sites out there that cover topics
> that can not be handled by the Fedora Project proper (i.e.  Third
> Party drivers).

My understanding is this means some substantial and repeated misuse
that is harmful to the brand, for example mutating the logo; or using
the logo outside the license agreement, such as to offer
Fedora-branded goods for sale when the agreement doesn't cover that.
The intent is not to squelch criticism or open discussion of topics,
including those beyond what the Fedora Project itself offers.  The
required disclaimer that Red Hat and the Fedora Project aren't
responsible for the site content already helps reduce confusion.  We
can surely look into changing that heading to be reflective of the
real intent of the paragraph.

> Also on point 5; two business days is a pretty aggressive schedule for
> hobbyist sites, I think five business days may be more amiably
> accepted by the community as a whole as most of us do this in our spare
> time and with real life commitments two days may become an issue
> depending on the nature of the request.

I don't think there should be any problem changing that timeframe.

> > By the way, I had a little chuckle because "verbiage" usually means
> > "excessive wording" -- which may be what you intended! :-)
> 
> I believe I meant verbage but the spell checker grabbed it and changed
> it to something quite humorous. 

/me puts on Shaggy's "Bombastic"

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug