[Zope] Re: Zope Foundation Update

[Matt Hamilton]

Hadar Pedhazur wrote:

> Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the
> ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the
> word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the
> LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_
> ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our
> base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in
> Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our
> website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had
> already registered).
> 
> I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer.

A few points I want to clear up... the next two paragraphs I write are 
about technicalities, I am not refering to any moral right or wrong, or 
who did what etc.

In my view the confusion is apparent.  If I go to zope.org I see the 
same logo (admittedly with the word community added to it).  If I 
install Zope and go to the ZMI one of the first things I see is the Zope 
logo.  I can clearly see how people associate the logo with the 
software.  Very few clients (and potential clients) we talk to in the UK 
are even aware of ZC... *in their mind* Zope is a CMS not a company.

And please please please remember that there is no such thing as 
'registered the trademark in Europe'.  There are many companies in 
Europe and the trademarks have to be registered in specific countries.

> Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More
> importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a
> phone call that they believe that there were deals that they
> could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now
> extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the
> Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe
> would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage
> point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!?

You are twisting the truth here -- I wish I had recorded the phone call 
now to prevent the chinese whispers :)  On the call to Lois, Xavier said 
that there are certain possibilities of using Zope for EU projects which 
would be hampered by a corporation (ie ZC) owning the trademark to the 
OSS software.  ZEA does not want the trademark.  Repeat.  ZEA does not 
want the trademark.

> it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the "facts"
> are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an
> example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register
> our own marks in Europe, which we did.

Yes, you are still mis-understanding the facts.  Europe consists of many 
countries, of which you registered the mark in just six - Germany, 
Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Italy.

ZEA then went on to further protect the mark registering it in: Austria, 
Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyrus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine

> Amazingly enough, we have owned the trademark since 2002 (we
> changed our name in 2001, and it took that long to get the
> trademark registered in the US). There was _no_ hope of a
> Foundation at the time. Yet, by your own admission, you and
> others continued to invest marketing money in the brand.
> Why?

Because we believed (and still want to believe) in the good of all the 
parties involved.  I guess when we started investing in promoting the 
software there was no confusion with the name, now there is.

> The more amazing part is that now that we will transfer the
> IP to the Foundation, and give an _irrevocable_ license to
> the Foundation for the use of the word ZOPE to brand the
> software (which can _never_ be taken back, even if someone
> acquires us), but somehow, _now_ you are worried about
> investing in the Zope brand. I simply can't connect the
> dots.

I guess its because IANAL, but I just:

1) Don't understand how an irrevocable license works.
2) Am still unclear of licencing issues, when Rob spoke at EPC about the 
foundation it was very unclear as to who would make decisions on 
licensing, in some cases ZC would have the final say, and in some cases 
the ZF.  It just seemed confusing to me.
3) ZC is a very small, yet very powerful part of the Zope Community 
(maybe this is just my view from Europe).  Can you explain to me exactly 
what benefits ZC has in holding the trademarks as opposed to them being 
held by an independant foundation?  The fact that ZC doesn't want them 
to be held by an independant 3rd party makes me think something sinister 
is planned on the horizon.

> Two months ago, you would invest, when there was no
> Foundation on the horizon, and the Zope software could be
> revoked by a future acquirer of ZC. Now, there will be a
> guaranteed future for the Zope software and brand forever,
> independent of ZC, but that's somehow now "risky" for you to
> invest...

Yes a future acquirer of ZC could try and revoke the software, but it is 
licensed under the ZPL so is joint ownership.  I think this creates 
enough of an incentive to prevent this happening as much of the code is 
contributed by people other than ZC.


> I agree that Rob's suggestion was a good one, and the fact
> that I agreed to it shows that we are more than willing to
> work with the community to find _reasonable_ ways to solve
> problems.

Yes, it is reasonable and it is a start of dialogue.  This is a distinct 
improvement over last week's approach of 'We are not negotiating 
anything.  Hand it over or we set our lawyers on you'.  When I 
*specifically* asked Lois if something like this was possible she 
re-iterated that you would not be willing to enter any further discussion.

> Perhaps European law is different that US law, but Rob
> stated clearly that the contract would name ZC's successors
> and assigns, which makes it legally binding on anyone who
> purchases ZC as well. In the US, that contract would survive
> the sale of ZC. I see no reason to be paranoid about that
> eventuality, as long as you would trust the initial contract
> between ZC and the ZF.

OK, in which case, that makes sense to me.  Combined with Rob's idea of 
letting the board of the ZF make the decisions on licensing issues I 
think I personally am happy.

-Matt


-- 
Matt Hamilton                                       matth at netsight.co.uk
Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd.        Business Vision on the Internet
http://www.netsight.co.uk                             +44 (0)117 9090901
Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting