| loupgaroublond | for those not listening: | 15:18 |
|---|---|---|
| loupgaroublond | max is going over the roster of who is here | 15:18 |
| loupgaroublond | christoph wickert, robert scheck, paul frields, pam (i apologize that i forgot her last name), gerold kassube, fabian affolter, joerg simon, max spevack, pierros papadeas, and yaakov nemoy | 15:19 |
| ... join!#fedora-fad -> liknus(n=liknus@147.102.219.137) | 15:19 | |
| stickster | Pam Chestek | 15:20 |
| rsc | Pamela Chestek, | 15:20 |
| stickster | Pam is Red Hat's trademark attorney :-) | 15:20 |
| loupgaroublond | max said that he is trying to tackle one of the issues that he could never get to while he was the project leader, but paul started working on, and now it's time to address those remaining issues | 15:20 |
| rsc | Senior IP Attorney @ Red Hat, Inc. | 15:20 |
| stickster | And also a Fedora contributor :-) | 15:20 |
| loupgaroublond | the second issue is about the existence of Fedora EMEA e.v and the problems with the name of the organisation | 15:20 |
| loupgaroublond | moderation by max | 15:21 |
| loupgaroublond | floor open for questions | 15:21 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks to talk about trademark first | 15:21 |
| rsc | I don't care. | 15:21 |
| rsc | loupgaroublond: christoph asked | 15:21 |
| loupgaroublond | oh | 15:21 |
| loupgaroublond | ah ok | 15:22 |
| loupgaroublond | didn't recognize the voice | 15:22 |
| loupgaroublond | max proposes to discuss trademark first | 15:22 |
| loupgaroublond | 15 minutes trademark conversation - go | 15:22 |
| loupgaroublond | pam wants to thank everyone for the discussion on the f-a-b list, it helped plug up loopholes and the document is better now for it | 15:23 |
| loupgaroublond | pam's comment now is that we need a worldwide applicable document without getting into national specifics | 15:23 |
| loupgaroublond | chris thanks people for the changes and the concern, but still is not happy fully with the outcome | 15:25 |
| loupgaroublond | the first part is the number 3, termination at any time, and part 7, the indemnification clause | 15:25 |
| loupgaroublond | pam comments that there is no immediate termination with no notice and no reason | 15:26 |
| stickster | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_license_agreement <-- link to current text | 15:26 |
| loupgaroublond | christoph asks what 'no notice' in practice | 15:26 |
| loupgaroublond | thank you :) | 15:26 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-fad -> twoerner_("Client exiting") | 15:27 | |
| loupgaroublond | pam's comments is that she doesn't see it as a likely outcome, but this is to allow for the situation where there is a legal claim against red hat itself | 15:27 |
| loupgaroublond | this is to limit damages to red hat (my interpretation, if i may, to both red hat and the community) | 15:27 |
| loupgaroublond | in such a situation, it has to be taken down immediately, says pam | 15:28 |
| loupgaroublond | christoph asks if the community member can also be sued, although pam points out that the indemnification protects the community member | 15:29 |
| loupgaroublond | christoph asks if the indemnification can apply after the agreement is terminated, pam proposes this is a possibility | 15:29 |
| loupgaroublond | christoph asks about if there are needed limits on the indemnification in regards to american law | 15:30 |
| loupgaroublond | pam says that this is something that needs to be evaluated, but such a rare situation is pretty remote for the most part | 15:31 |
| loupgaroublond | christoph remarks that this does address his two points, though as far as he knows (afahk?) there might be othre issues too | 15:32 |
| cwickert | speak up, robert | 15:32 |
| wonderer | :) | 15:33 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks, if we take out the indemnification completely, does it make a difference | 15:33 |
| loupgaroublond | pam, speaking from normalized law, if you get sued for using fedora, red hat has no responsibility to defend you in court | 15:34 |
| loupgaroublond | in the case that someone slanders another party, using the fedora trademark, even if RH gets sued for that action, that first party has no obligation either | 15:35 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks what happens if 'somebody' purchases red hat tomorrow | 15:36 |
| loupgaroublond | pam says that is something we have no control over in any case | 15:36 |
| loupgaroublond | one of the reasons there was a 30 day agreement was to protect us in such a case, now the new 'somebody' has no power | 15:37 |
| ... mode!#fedora-fad -> (+o GeroldKa) by ChanServ | 15:38 | |
| loupgaroublond | the best is to say that the contract can't be terminated unless it expires or there is a breech | 15:38 |
| ... GeroldKa changed the topic of #fedora-fad to: * * * Fedora Activity Day * * * | 25.09.-27.09.09 Rheinfelden, Germany, EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) just startet | 15:38 | |
| ... GeroldKa changed the topic of #fedora-fad to: * * * Fedora Activity Day * * * | 25.09.-27.09.09 Rheinfelden, Germany, EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) just started | 15:39 | |
| @GeroldKa | sorry for the typo :-) | 15:39 |
| loupgaroublond | no worries :) | 15:39 |
| loupgaroublond | pam points out thta if the contract does expire, then we are back to where we were when we started with this process | 15:39 |
| ... mode!#fedora-fad -> (-o GeroldKa) by GeroldKa | 15:39 | |
| loupgaroublond | paul posits that if you're the agreement holder, if company XYZ buys RH, the worse thing that happens in that they give 30 days notice to the agreement holders, but they can't send a cease and decist, and can't go after people so long they have the agreement | 15:40 |
| ... mode!#fedora-fad -> (+o stickster) by ChanServ | 15:40 | |
| loupgaroublond | pam points out that this is correct | 15:41 |
| * wonderer loves the way loupgaroublond writes all here down. very easy to follow. | 15:41 | |
| wonderer | greetings to all! | 15:41 |
| loupgaroublond | if XYZ wants to shut down fedora, there's a 'license defense' | 15:41 |
| loupgaroublond | wonderer, yeah, trying to get more involvement from people not here :) | 15:42 |
| loupgaroublond | max stipulates that all RH employees on this call don't know anything about anything :P | 15:42 |
| loupgaroublond | max ask roberts if he has other questions | 15:45 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks about the clause where the agreement can be terminated without a breech or violation, pam reminds us that it's been taking out | 15:45 |
| loupgaroublond | pam says there is no longer a 'termination for no reason at all', although it's standard in many contracts | 15:47 |
| loupgaroublond | there is a clause that RH will consider reimbursement if the domain goes to RH | 15:47 |
| ... join!#fedora-fad -> BlackFate(n=sdfsdfs@150.140.227.230) | 15:47 | |
| loupgaroublond | this is an issue about RH's steering of the community, 'keeping the domains sticky to the community', the domains should not get lost, but should stay in the family | 15:47 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks about the agreement beeing a requirement, doesn't this make things harder | 15:48 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-fad -> inode0("Leaving.") | 15:49 | |
| loupgaroublond | pams sees the risk of domains falling into hands that are not friendly to the fedora community is a potential serious problem, and it's important to the community for it to stay associated | 15:49 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks if the domain will be given back to the community, or if it will just be 'held' | 15:50 |
| loupgaroublond | max replies that any names owned by red hat, fedora's board and leadership would use and manage the content and infrastructure for any domain | 15:50 |
| loupgaroublond | pam seconds that, her perspective is that it's a fedora business question | 15:51 |
| loupgaroublond | paul agrees that this is correct | 15:51 |
| loupgaroublond | he adds, they are owned, some because it's helpful and a standard business practice with trademarks, and as others pile over a long period of time, it accretes into a pool | 15:52 |
| * spevack notes that we need to move on to the other half of this call soon | 15:52 | |
| loupgaroublond | it may be wise for rh to look at the domains and get people to care for them | 15:52 |
| * loupgaroublond sees Fedora Katamari Damcy on the way | 15:52 | |
| loupgaroublond | paul goes back to fedora fixers, which was an ubuntu logo | 15:53 |
| loupgaroublond | max points out that it hurts the trademark | 15:53 |
| @stickster | loupgaroublond: Note that I don't recall the exact domain name there | 15:53 |
| loupgaroublond | hehe, duly noted :) | 15:53 |
| * stickster would hate to find out that was a real domain and some good Fedora person was in charge of it :-) | 15:53 | |
| loupgaroublond | gerold sees the same issue with swag | 15:53 |
| rsc | Well, for a linux logo on ass, there's "Arsch Linux" ;-) | 15:54 |
| loupgaroublond | the question is if tehre are inappropriate ways, and should we make distinctions | 15:54 |
| @stickster | rsc: Ha! bilingual pun | 15:54 |
| loupgaroublond | 90% of everything sucks, and so does the other half :P | 15:55 |
| loupgaroublond | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines | 15:55 |
| loupgaroublond | stickster, the internet is good at remembering things ;) | 15:55 |
| loupgaroublond | paul points out that this is already on the wiki | 15:56 |
| loupgaroublond | paul is going back to a company that wanted to offer a VM, which wasn't explicitely included then | 15:56 |
| LinuxCode | rsc, pun missed, it is arse | 15:56 |
| loupgaroublond | there were issues with preinstalls | 15:56 |
| LinuxCode | pun at the pun! | 15:56 |
| LinuxCode | ;-D | 15:56 |
| loupgaroublond | paul reminds us that the guidelines are edited to accomodate new ideas | 15:57 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: arschlinux.de ;) | 15:57 |
| loupgaroublond | max points out we can have this discussion later | 15:58 |
| loupgaroublond | that this is good for fad | 15:58 |
| loupgaroublond | gerold nods his head in agreement | 15:58 |
| wonderer | +1 | 15:58 |
| loupgaroublond | max proposes moving on to the second part | 15:59 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks about the rules about using the trademark symbol with the fedora logo | 15:59 |
| loupgaroublond | paul says that it's been fixed so that it fits the local custom | 16:00 |
| loupgaroublond | most prominent and first use only requires a trademark symbol or recognition | 16:00 |
| loupgaroublond | pam points it that it's correct, with one exception, completely not using trademark symbols | 16:00 |
| loupgaroublond | but this is not something that could cause termination | 16:00 |
| loupgaroublond | in the worse case scenario, if there is some problem, there would be a notice sent first which gives the agreement holder the chance to fix it | 16:02 |
| loupgaroublond | so the only worry is about compliance with the guidelines themselves | 16:03 |
| * spevack notes that we REALLY need to move on now, since pam's time is limited | 16:04 | |
| loupgaroublond | +1000000 | 16:05 |
| wonderer | +1 ! | 16:05 |
| loupgaroublond | please? | 16:05 |
| wonderer | go on... | 16:05 |
| loupgaroublond | max says we have to move on now | 16:08 |
| loupgaroublond | max thanks robert and christoph for going over their concerns, and pam for answering said concerns | 16:08 |
| loupgaroublond | max is going back to a conversation in berlin in june | 16:09 |
| loupgaroublond | the documentation and paperwork around the NPO, in which gerold was instrumental at taking care of, RH had the chance had to look at it, to see if there were issues that could crop up, legally, around teh way things were set up | 16:09 |
| loupgaroublond | the feedback that paul and max got was the significant issue was the use of the fedora name , and not just for this non profit, but for other non profits | 16:10 |
| loupgaroublond | max would like to get some decision about what is the future rules with the trademark, by the end of this phone call | 16:11 |
| loupgaroublond | pam will give us some history | 16:11 |
| loupgaroublond | in the IP legal department in RH, there were some changes and new hires since the decision was made | 16:11 |
| loupgaroublond | and at the time the issue wasn't considered as fully as it should have | 16:12 |
| loupgaroublond | and pam would like to apologize for the problems that it caused | 16:12 |
| rsc | Red Hat, Inc. wants to revoke the permission to use "Fedora" in "Fedora EMEA e.V."? | 16:12 |
| loupgaroublond | and that this should not be a reflection on what is brought by the volunteers to the community | 16:13 |
| loupgaroublond | rsc, it's an issue about future policy assigning the trademark, and some questioning about if fedora emea was appropriate at all | 16:13 |
| rsc | that means for Fedora EMEA e.V. what exactly? | 16:13 |
| loupgaroublond | no one knows :) | 16:14 |
| wonderer | :-( | 16:14 |
| loupgaroublond | doesn't have to be | 16:15 |
| loupgaroublond | max wants me to add to the record that he takes the blame | 16:15 |
| loupgaroublond | paul says it's a shared responsibility | 16:15 |
| * loupgaroublond thinks we should just talk meat and quit chewing the fat | 16:16 | |
| spevack | rsc: i wouldn't say it that way -- not that Red Hat wants to revoke the permission. That there are reasons why it is bad for the name Fedora to be in the name of the e.V. | 16:16 |
| loupgaroublond | max points out that there are reasons that could be bad for both the npo and red hat | 16:18 |
| loupgaroublond | and the only thing that has to change would be the cosmetics | 16:18 |
| rsc | cosmetics as in renaming the npo, right? | 16:18 |
| loupgaroublond | i ask if we can evaluate the list, and perhaps come to a better solution | 16:18 |
| spevack | rsc: yes | 16:18 |
| rsc | spevack: I wonder whether a German lawyer was asked. | 16:18 |
| loupgaroublond | gerold points out that the name was picked when the trademark was not yet fully established | 16:19 |
| loupgaroublond | and then there are issues with the name itself, in regards to the german courts | 16:19 |
| rsc | spevack: because I had a very short talk with one today regarding that, and from the first point of view, he can't see an overlap between non-profit use and a trademark | 16:19 |
| spevack | rsc: like i said to you on the phone earlier, the primary worry is in the United States, which may be more strict. And Red Hat *exists* in the United States, of course :P | 16:19 |
| loupgaroublond | and if we rename ourselves, we might lose our permission and ability to help the fedora community | 16:19 |
| spevack | regardless of this NPO being in EMEA | 16:19 |
| loupgaroublond | so changing the name could go both ways | 16:19 |
| * LinuxCode would like to point out that the US doesnt care about other national laws | 16:20 | |
| LinuxCode | which is why anyone can sue in the US, even for non-national issues | 16:20 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: so that's the reason to IGNORE the US ultimately here :) | 16:20 |
| LinuxCode | if it only worked that way | 16:20 |
| spevack | you guys don't understand me. | 16:20 |
| LinuxCode | spevack, I do | 16:20 |
| rsc | spevack: I do, but I don't want to. | 16:21 |
| spevack | If there is a problem ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that could cause an issue under US law, that is a problem | 16:21 |
| loupgaroublond | ok, plain and simple, changing the name could be bad for the npo, but keeping the name could also be bad, both in german and american courts | 16:21 |
| spevack | rsc heh | 16:21 |
| loupgaroublond | period | 16:21 |
| LinuxCode | apart from that, there is an agreement | 16:22 |
| LinuxCode | so any TMs are applicable in other countries | 16:22 |
| loupgaroublond | pam wants to know how changing the name, how it could affect our ability, especially since we work as fedora ambassadors | 16:22 |
| LinuxCode | includes patents (excludes software patents) | 16:22 |
| LinuxCode | and genetic patents in the EU | 16:22 |
| rsc | In Germany, only the EU trademark applies, not the US one ;) | 16:22 |
| loupgaroublond | gerold comments that there are also potential sponsors, and having the name gives them a target to support | 16:22 |
| LinuxCode | rsc, the EU accepts US TMs | 16:23 |
| LinuxCode | as I said earlier | 16:23 |
| loupgaroublond | in this case, it's a question of listings | 16:23 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: the problem is, Fedora is registered separately at EU trademark office, not invoked. | 16:23 |
| LinuxCode | imho, I find it ridiculous, if Fedora EMEA cant be called that | 16:23 |
| loupgaroublond | that we have fedora in our statutes is another issue, since it's also trademark, do we need to edit the statutes | 16:23 |
| LinuxCode | as it links the NPO with the purpose it serves | 16:23 |
| LinuxCode | rsc, I am no lawyer and I am sure we could argue about this all day long | 16:24 |
| LinuxCode | fact is though, nobody wants to get sued | 16:24 |
| LinuxCode | and Red Hat should allow the use of Fedora as the NPO is there to serve Red Hat in one way or another | 16:24 |
| LinuxCode | at least imho | 16:24 |
| LinuxCode | considering the free work people do for Fedora, and therefore ultimately for Red Hat, I think this is least thing that should be allowed | 16:25 |
| loupgaroublond | joerg adds his concern that the brand *is* fedora, we live this brand with videos, with the 'iamfedora' campaign, if we take the name out of the name, we lose this branding | 16:25 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: unfortunately I had too much conversations with lawyers regarding that :( | 16:25 |
| LinuxCode | rsc, lawyers will tell you what you want to hear, fact | 16:26 |
| LinuxCode | loupgaroublond, I share those concerns | 16:26 |
| loupgaroublond | duly noted :) | 16:27 |
| LinuxCode | quite frankly, it is kind of insulting if Fedora cant be in the NPO's name | 16:27 |
| loupgaroublond | this is why we're having this conversation in the first place | 16:27 |
| @stickster | LinuxCode: Max is talking now about separating the emotional content of brand from the legal context, so let's try to do that here too :-) | 16:27 |
| LinuxCode | exactly | 16:27 |
| rsc | if Fedora EMEA e.V. looses it's name, it's like Fedora would be called Ubuntu. | 16:27 |
| @stickster | rsc: See above ^^ | 16:28 |
| loupgaroublond | ubuntu emea, doing their best to support ubuntu by giving money to fedora ;) | 16:28 |
| rsc | stickster: but feeling is, what Fedora makes Fedora. | 16:28 |
| loupgaroublond | max asked pam to go over the concerns | 16:28 |
| loupgaroublond | pam's first concern is that there is a profit making company attached to the trademark, the fact that the name is shared could make it look like laundering money | 16:28 |
| rsc | what Pam is talking above seems US paranoidity - sorry. | 16:29 |
| LinuxCode | stickster, agreed, but the same corporate people, that thought Fedora would harm Red Hat's business model, seem to think that the community, who wants to expand Fedora, by giving people what they want, i.e. swag etc.. and raise money to promote Fedora further , might have some legal problems for themselves | 16:29 |
| loupgaroublond | rsc, that's not the case, this sort of thing happens all over the world | 16:30 |
| rsc | loupgaroublond: listen to Gerold :) | 16:30 |
| LinuxCode | loupgaroublond, sure, I understand that Red Hat has to protect the TM | 16:30 |
| loupgaroublond | this particular issue is not about trademark protection, we have a fine agreement | 16:30 |
| LinuxCode | but we arent a competitor, we are the community that makes and does marketing for Fedora! | 16:30 |
| loupgaroublond | no kidding | 16:31 |
| @stickster | LinuxCode: Please let loupgaroublond take notes | 16:31 |
| @stickster | loupgaroublond: Please take notes. | 16:31 |
| rsc | GeroldKa: that's US paranoia ;) | 16:31 |
| loupgaroublond | gerold is commenting that there is no business related to fedora | 16:31 |
| LinuxCode | Gerold, think again..... | 16:31 |
| loupgaroublond | pam points out that she can go to any country, by virtue of trademark registration can stop any company from using the name fedora | 16:31 |
| loupgaroublond | this is standard and normal, btw | 16:32 |
| loupgaroublond | gerold has to run | 16:32 |
| LinuxCode | pam, which is fine, however we are not the enemy! | 16:32 |
| rsc | she only can stop using the same, if there's an overlap of the kind of registration! | 16:32 |
| @kital | but i it is not just a name ! | 16:32 |
| rsc | if I have a funiture company called Fedora, Red Hat can't stop me using Fedora for funiture. | 16:32 |
| loupgaroublond | even though RH and f emea are not legally related, there is some confusion and puts both parties at risk, taxes, liabilities, contract liabilities | 16:33 |
| loupgaroublond | rsc, please speak up on the call then | 16:33 |
| loupgaroublond | max brings up one point | 16:33 |
| loupgaroublond | gerold runs out to pick up jeroen | 16:33 |
| loupgaroublond | one comment is 'such and such a thing doesn't happen in <foo country>' | 16:33 |
| loupgaroublond | the difference is that RH exists in all these countries, a US tax auditor can look at RH's global books, he'll start asking what the heck is going on, it's a problem for RH | 16:34 |
| LinuxCode | then maybe, red Hat should employ people to do Fedora marketing and sell Fedora goods | 16:34 |
| LinuxCode | as that is what people want | 16:34 |
| LinuxCode | loads of users I have spoken to want to buy Fedora goods! | 16:34 |
| rsc | BUT the US tax auditor has to accept and follow the German law anyway. | 16:34 |
| LinuxCode | rsc, US doesnt follow anything | 16:34 |
| loupgaroublond | rsc, phone call, please | 16:34 |
| loupgaroublond | 'it sucks when things are more difficult for you because of countries you don't live in' | 16:35 |
| @stickster | rsc: He may have to follow that law in Germany, but he has to follow US law in the US. | 16:35 |
| LinuxCode | stickster, but nobody is asking for Red Hat to give Fedora EMEA money or ? | 16:35 |
| @stickster | LinuxCode: Please let me finish :-) | 16:35 |
| LinuxCode | I thought the idea was that we sell goods, raise donations etc.. | 16:35 |
| LinuxCode | sorry | 16:35 |
| LinuxCode | btw I am not on the VoIP convo | 16:36 |
| loupgaroublond | pam adds from her experience that the french take a very broad view on trademark, so things here are very limited | 16:36 |
| @stickster | If the closeness of the names in Germany create an appearance *in the US*, *to a US auditor* that a *US company* is doing something inappropriate, it is *here in the US* that Red Hat can get in trouble. | 16:36 |
| @stickster | And this is not a remote risk. | 16:36 |
| @stickster | It is a real one. | 16:36 |
| @stickster | <eof/> | 16:36 |
| loupgaroublond | ad that the policy needs to be applied across the board | 16:36 |
| LinuxCode | stickster, but, Fedora EMEA is not a compnay or subsidiary of Fedora/Red Hat Inc | 16:37 |
| LinuxCode | they only allow Fedora EMEA to use the TM name | 16:37 |
| loupgaroublond | joerg asks for verification that the US law doesn't care about the german side of things | 16:37 |
| LinuxCode | and no financial gains are income of Red Hat Inc | 16:37 |
| @stickster | LinuxCode: It is the *name* that would create the confusion and problem in that case. | 16:37 |
| @stickster | That is the entire issue here. | 16:37 |
| loupgaroublond | he wants to know if the US law and auditors would believe us | 16:38 |
| * stickster notes that Pam just completely echoed what stickster just said here. | 16:38 | |
| loupgaroublond | pam thinks the auditors would find this suspcious | 16:38 |
| LinuxCode | how can a tax auditor claim, that a NPO that gets no money from Red Hat Inc, nor pays money back, is in any way tax liable or other... | 16:38 |
| LinuxCode | pam, so ? | 16:38 |
| spevack | LinuxCode: the NPO gets ALMOST ALL of its money from Red Hat | 16:39 |
| LinuxCode | donations ? | 16:39 |
| loupgaroublond | robert wants to know what happens when the GmbH donates money | 16:39 |
| loupgaroublond | max points out that it's a child legal entity of a US corp | 16:39 |
| wonderer | can RH give the "licence" to use the name? | 16:39 |
| LinuxCode | wonderer, that is what I am getting at | 16:39 |
| spevack | LinuxCode: http://fedoraemea.org/finances2008.shtml | 16:39 |
| LinuxCode | spevack, yeh but from what I gather, the real issue is that Fedora EMEA makes a profit, and hence would potentially make RH inc libale to pay taxes | 16:40 |
| * loupgaroublond adds that because RH is a publically traded company, it's a double problem with the international books | 16:41 | |
| LinuxCode | for instance if Fedora EMEA sold Fedora goods to raise money for marketing purposes | 16:41 |
| rsc | loupgaroublond: the question of wonderer is interesting, we should add it to talk. | 16:41 |
| loupgaroublond | wonderer, from my POV, that could amke it worse, i'll throw it in the fray | 16:42 |
| wonderer | thx. | 16:42 |
| rsc | in the end, it's Red Hat and US unwillingness. We have the "Robert Bosch NPO" and the "Robert Bosch GmbH" in Germany and it works. | 16:43 |
| loupgaroublond | wonderer, yeah, pam confirms this | 16:43 |
| LinuxCode | lol | 16:43 |
| LinuxCode | so whats the problem then ? | 16:43 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: Red Hat and US unwillingness, as I said. | 16:43 |
| loupgaroublond | rsc, tough beans, RH is incorporated in delaware | 16:43 |
| @stickster | rsc: When you talk about willingness, what we're really talking about is Red Hat's ability to take on risk that goes to its stockholders, as a publicly traded company. | 16:44 |
| @stickster | It's not about people saying "We just don't want to do that" | 16:44 |
| @stickster | It's about saying, "That could cause a very expensive problem that would cost the company a huge amount of money and divert attention from the mission we're trying to achieve." | 16:44 |
| rsc | stickster: there's also a joint-stock company around Robert Bosch company. | 16:45 |
| @stickster | rsc: We've already established that the German law is not the sole issue here. | 16:45 |
| * loupgaroublond asks pam to explain problems we could have with the name | 16:45 | |
| LinuxCode | maybe some red hat legal people should contact Bosch then, and ask them how they handle it | 16:45 |
| rsc | stickster: yes, so Red Hat and US unwillingness, as I said. | 16:45 |
| loupgaroublond | pam points out that this is a concern for us in the US, were we based in the US | 16:46 |
| LinuxCode | as Bosch also trades in the US | 16:46 |
| rsc | stickster: in the end it's a US-only issue. | 16:46 |
| @stickster | rsc: It is an issue caused by US law, I agree with you there | 16:46 |
| @stickster | But that doesn't make it "not an issue" elsewhere. | 16:46 |
| wonderer | stickster: I see the point and I think ther will be days of conversations to talk through :-( press thumbs. | 16:47 |
| @stickster | loupgaroublond: notes? | 16:47 |
| loupgaroublond | ah, sorry | 16:47 |
| rsc | stickster: fix the US-law? :) | 16:47 |
| * stickster jumps in with a note | 16:47 | |
| loupgaroublond | been thinking on the problem | 16:47 |
| @stickster | Max just jumped in with an excellent point | 16:47 |
| loupgaroublond | max asks if it's possible that being to close could jepepordize our status in germany too | 16:48 |
| @stickster | Which is that when the paperwork was drawn up, Gerold had to change the paperwork to de-emphasize Fedora so that the German officials could approve it. | 16:48 |
| loupgaroublond | but joerg is pointing out that there's more than just a name per se | 16:48 |
| @stickster | That seems to *support* what Pam is saying | 16:48 |
| @stickster | rsc: We are *always* trying to fix US laws :-) | 16:48 |
| @stickster | There's so many to fix! | 16:48 |
| loupgaroublond | pam appreciates and is sensitive to our need for identity | 16:48 |
| rsc | stickster: looks like CLOSED NOTABUG until now :( | 16:48 |
| @stickster | rsc: Nope, ASSIGNED. | 16:49 |
| loupgaroublond | closed wontfix | 16:49 |
| loupgaroublond | pam hopes that we can continue to doing the same work | 16:49 |
| LinuxCode | I just have one last question though | 16:49 |
| loupgaroublond | max points that it hurts him that this could have been fixed in the beginning | 16:49 |
| spevack | LinuxCode: go ahead | 16:49 |
| LinuxCode | so, if Fedora EMEA is called Friends of the Hat EMA | 16:50 |
| LinuxCode | and we sell Fedora goods | 16:50 |
| LinuxCode | can we sell Fedora goods without cuaing a conflict ? | 16:50 |
| LinuxCode | causing | 16:50 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: selling as NPO is situation. | 16:50 |
| @stickster | Problem solved, AFAIK. | 16:50 |
| spevack | that is no problem | 16:50 |
| spevack | LinuxCode: you have proposed a perfect solution | 16:50 |
| rsc | LinuxCode: eh is an issue. | 16:50 |
| LinuxCode | makes no sense to me | 16:50 |
| LinuxCode | lol | 16:50 |
| * loupgaroublond adds, as treasurer, that one of his goals is to find alternate funding to fix said above problem | 16:50 | |
| LinuxCode | Freedora EMEA | 16:51 |
| @stickster | A NPO is allowed to sell things as long as they are not pocketing profits. (That would make them not-a-NPO.) | 16:51 |
| LinuxCode | there you go | 16:51 |
| rsc | spevack: if we register Fedora as trademark for Hats, we even can call ourself Fedora again. | 16:51 |
| loupgaroublond | now, the name can't be partitioned, but it would be nice to have a list we can evaluate potential risk, and find a minimal level acceptable to everyone | 16:51 |
| loupgaroublond | joerg asks about schwag | 16:51 |
| loupgaroublond | max reminds us this applies to the schwag agreement | 16:51 |
| rsc | *swag | 16:51 |
| loupgaroublond | schwag | 16:51 |
| loupgaroublond | :P | 16:51 |
| loupgaroublond | if i meant [swaeg] i would write swag | 16:52 |
| LinuxCode | so, we cant be called Freedora ? | 16:52 |
| loupgaroublond | nope, there's already freeeee | 16:52 |
| LinuxCode | ? | 16:52 |
| LinuxCode | ahh i see | 16:52 |
| LinuxCode | Freedora EMEA | 16:53 |
| LinuxCode | != Freedora Fedora spinoff | 16:53 |
| loupgaroublond | robert asks about the problem of us changing the name, we won't get the funds, so he's asking about changing our focus so we don't have trademark overlap | 16:53 |
| bochecha | stickster, what do you call « profits » ? Does selling stuff to finance future actions constitutes profit ? | 16:53 |
| loupgaroublond | bochecha, distributing profits to the shareholders | 16:54 |
| @stickster | bochecha: No, that does not constitute profit | 16:54 |
| loupgaroublond | joerg comments that we will have to change the name, but wants to make sure people understand the reason | 16:54 |
| @stickster | As long as the funds aren't held past a certain time (usually a matter of years) | 16:54 |
| @stickster | If you spend them within a certain amount of time after they come in, you don't risk a non-profit status. | 16:54 |
| loupgaroublond | paul asks if there are any issues left | 16:55 |
| loupgaroublond | we're done here | 16:55 |
| bochecha | thanks stickster and loupgaroublond, I got worried for a brief instant :) | 16:56 |
| loupgaroublond | max thanks everyone, paul and pam especially, for the time | 16:56 |
| loupgaroublond | max, i think part of the community building we do is building these things piece by piece | 16:56 |
| LinuxCode | btw I apologize for being antagonistic, I dont mean to be, its just frustrating | 16:56 |
| loupgaroublond | and sometimes we have to do it other ways, but it's better to be open | 16:57 |
| * LinuxCode doesnt want to appear rude | 16:57 | |
| loupgaroublond | LinuxCode, this is why there is a phone call | 16:57 |
| loupgaroublond | paul was glad this was done over the phone, he can't imagine how long it would take via email | 16:57 |
| loupgaroublond | paul wants to let people know that pam will be coming to fudcon in toronto and to do a session on legal issues, how things happen, how does sausage get made | 16:57 |
| LinuxCode | awesome | 16:58 |
| LinuxCode | lol | 16:58 |
| LinuxCode | sausage is made | 16:58 |
| LinuxCode | ;-D | 16:58 |
| loupgaroublond | i also want to thank people on IRC for your comments | 16:58 |
| loupgaroublond | and now we're gonna sign off from germany | 16:58 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!