Z98 wrote:I'm pretty sure we made clear at the time that while you could use the trademark as a 'label' to describe the images you could not use it to promote sales or imply any sort of formal relationship with the project. As such, if you attempted to print the logo onto the CD, the use of the logo could only be informational and we required you to make very clear that this was not a formal printing by the project.
Trademark or logo? The two are not exactly the same, even though one has to do with the other. You mean, I suppose, just saying something like 'This is ROS version 0.3.17' or something and NOT the logo. Because, if you're talking about the logo as well being allowed, even as an 'informal' (it's a logo: how informal can an official logo be?) printing...
Of course, in my case, that would defeat the purpose of selling it FOR the ROS foundation (aka: the money going fully to the foundation). Since that was the view I took. which isn't the view the above printing-business takes, apparently. I had the impression the use of the logo was prohibited if one would sell it 'as such' too, however. Because now, if I understood correctly, you can use/print the logo on the CD and/or cover and/or booklet, and, as long as you don't claim it's affiliate with ROS, one can sell it? But I suppose one could say part of the donation went to ROS, if part of the donation WAS going to ROS? Seems to me it's all made unnecessary complicated, then:
Hypothetical situation:
- somebody makes a CD with the logo and all on it, and gives 100% to ROS, but ROS doesn't endorse it, and neither can the person say he does..and everything is ok.
- somebody makes exactly the same CD with the logo and all on it, and gives 100% to ROS, but ROS doesn't endorse it, and yet the person say he does..and everyone is in upheaval.
There is actually no difference in the de facto handling of the thing: the same CD, the same code, the same use of the logo, even the same contribution to ROS, but yet one gets the get-go and the other the cold shoulder. It seems to miss some pragmatism. If you don't want any endorsement (or implied endorsement) of a third party, one would reasonably assume the use of the logo isn't allowed neither, at least.
And if it's allowed to be used anyway: why isn't that considered an implicit sign of endorsement, then? Even if not interpreted that way by the ROS foundation, than at least it's easy to see how the one doing it could interpret it that way, and, even more, that many of the buyers will interpret it that way.
I'm not sure anymore, but as I remember - I would have to check my emails, but it's no use to harp on what is past, so I dunno if I can be bothered enough to do so - I think the use of the logo was actually a big issue. The use of it on itself.
Ah, well, it's not that I care anymore, it just surprised me to see something which I consider to be a far more relaxed attitude towards the usage of the logo. I have the definite impression it got interpreted much more stringent in the past. But I guess that's a good thing. A bit more of a relaxed attitude in regard to trademarks and all that may actually be good. I'm not sure of the marketing strategy of such a thing, then, however. I heard (by Vic?) complain that it's very difficult to set a shop up to sell CD's, etc, etc. Well, then, why not go on board with services as described like the one above in the thread? Ask a percentage, and in return give an explicit 'endorsement'. Even if few, it will get you more than just doing nothing at all. It's better to have 5% of 100 bucks than 100% of zero bucks. And there is very little overhead too, so the 'too shorthanded' reason may be given a rest.