1 |
On 19-04-30 13:43:31, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > It matters if things are perceived as official Gentoo and causing a |
5 |
> > negative reputation as in the article in this thread. One some level |
6 |
> > that actually goes to trademark infringement that should be of interest |
7 |
> > to the foundation, but the issue is broader than that. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> |
10 |
> While I don't speak for the Foundation, they already have a fairly |
11 |
> decent policy addressing this: |
12 |
> https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/foundation/name-logo-guidelines.html |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I believe this really only applies to use outside of Gentoo, and not |
15 |
> internal use. Whether a service like a Discord site falls under |
16 |
> internal use probably depends on the degree to which they are |
17 |
> completely subject to Council/Trustees/etc, and the social contract |
18 |
> and code of conduct as enacted by those bodies. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> For non-internal use the name/logo guidelines already have |
21 |
> requirements around reputation and code of conduct. You can't just |
22 |
> call yourself "Gentoo" and do whatever you want (not that I'm implying |
23 |
> that this is what any particular site is doing - I haven't even seen |
24 |
> the discord). |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
From what I remember the last time this came up we gave them the choice |
28 |
of not using the name/logo in an official sense and using them with the |
29 |
guidelines (CoC, etc). iirc, they chose to follow the CoC. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |