[Qgis-psc] Use of and trademarking of the name 'QGIS'

Fri Jul 5 04:14:39 PDT 2013

quick note

yes,  general  policy  is always  be  good.  We're  supporting our custom
installer  which  we  call  NextGIS QGIS (together with couple of other
products that make up our 'line').  We  don't  really feel strongly about keeping the name and
can somewhat easily rebrand to something else.

In  our  case though I don't think "keyword-hoarding" would apply as I
can  hardly  see  QGIS  project suddenly willing to add NextGIS to its
name) ;)

Maxim

Вы писали 5 июля 2013 г., 14:44:35:

VP> Hello,

VP> Good to raise this issue. A few comments on that point.

VP> I think Sourcepole move and product is really fine, actually needed, and a sign
VP> of maturity for both QGIS as a product, and as a strong GIS market element.
VP> NextGIS also has such an offer, and we could also be in a position to offer such
VP> QGIS specific version.

VP> I recently realized that someone uses the formation-qgis.com website name
VP> ("qgis-training.com" would be the english translation), and as such uses the
VP> qgis name as their own brand. As said, this leads to confusion and problematic
VP> situations for QGIS as a project.

VP> I would support Tim's and Otto suggestion, to have a name trademark policy
VP> similar to the firefox one : you can use the brand as long as you talk about
VP> the unmodified product as offered by the official QGIS project. Otherwise find your
VP> own name which should not lead to confusion.

VP> We could allow some exceptions to that, granted explicitely by the PSC, for
VP> specific cases like linux distributions or OSGeo4W which for various reason
VP> could have a need for modified QGIS versions (to avoid the firefox/iceweasel
VP> story in debian).

VP> It would therefore be good to have a written trademark policy available to
VP> anyone, so as to avoid general confusion of what QGIS is and where it comes
VP> from.

VP> As for the specific SourcePole case, that is a discussion to have with them in
VP> order to find a solution suitable for all, but we really need to have something
VP> generic and avoid any favoritism.

VP> I'm not on the PSC, but this is a general +1 for Tim's suggestions.

VP> Vincent

>> I agree with Tim. Before the latest thread on the lists, I wasn't really
>> aware, that there could be confusion about the Sourcepole products and the
>> QGIS project. But I understand that the names QGIS Cloud or QGIS Enterprise
>> might cause irritations and other problems for the project as described by
>> Tim below.
>> 
>> In the case of Sourcepole I also wouldn't see problem with their products
>> itself. They fills a gap for users and companies that we as an open source
>> (voluntary) project can't provide - at least not at the moment.
>> 
>> But as Tim said, it is a general problem, an open door, that anybody can
>> use the name QGIS for any kind of product - and this is definitely not
>> what I want. So I also see the need to find a solution for this and
>> support Tim's suggestions:
>> 
>> - Trademark QGIS
>> - Find a solution with Sourcepole (and maybe with others as well?) that we
>>   all can live with.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Otto
>> 
>> Am Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:05:39 +0200
>> 
>> schrieb Tim Sutton <tim at linfiniti.com>:
>> > Hi Folks
>> > 
>> > With the recent announcement from Pirmin about 'QGIS Enterprise' I think
>> > it would be good to resurface the discussion of trademarking the name
>> > 'QGIS'. I know Paolo did raise this once before but we did not really
>> > progress the discussion.
>> > 
>> > I know this discussion is going to be a little complicated by a) the fact
>> > that Marco is one of the fine folks behind Sourcepole and b) there are
>> > plenty of other precedents of the name 'QGIS' being used for 'unofficial
>> > products', so please understand I do not wish to be inflammatory in this
>> > email.
>> > 
>> > However it is my position that we should restrict the use of 'QGIS' in
>> > product names to only those products that are officially products of
>> > QGIS.org. The use of QGIS in third party products / derivative products
>> > is for me problematic on a few counts:
>> > 
>> > * *it creates confusion* - people will have an automatic expectation that
>> > the project in question is freely available and part of the standard
>> > offerings of QGIS.org. There is also the very likely possibility that we
>> > start getting misdirected enquiries for third party products arriving on
>> > our mailing lists and in our inboxes.
>> > 
>> > * *it limits our options* - case in point, if we as a project ever decide
>> > to produce an 'enterprise' version of QGIS, we no longer have the option
>> > to do so as there is already another product out there with the same
>> > name.
>> > 
>> > * *it signifies endorsement *- someone using the name 'QGIS' in their
>> > product is leading the users of that product to believe that it is
>> > endorsed by QGIS.org which probably isn't the case.
>> > 
>> > I think there are plenty of other established reasons why it is a good
>> > idea for us to control how the name QGIS should be used. In the case of
>> > QGIS Enterprise (Sourcepole product), I have absolutely no problem that
>> > it exists, but I do think the names 'QGIS Enterprise' and 'QGIS Cloud'
>> > etc leave scope for significant confusion amongst our users. People have
>> > already been asking about 'can they have it, can they have the source'
>> > etc. and I  would prefer that for any product that carries the QGIS
>> > name, the answer to these questions should always be an unequivocal
>> > 'YES!' since deep within the ethos of our project is the concept of a
>> > 'GIS for everyone'.
>> > 
>> > *What is my suggestion? *
>> > 
>> > * I would respectfully ask the Sourcepole team to consider renaming their
>> > products to something that does not carry in QGIS in the name unless they
>> > are wholly a product of the QGIS.org project. E.g. Sourcepole GIS,
>> > Sourcepole Cloud.
>> > 
>> > * I think we should pursue the idea of trademarking QGIS, ,QGIS.org and
>> > require that any product that carries the name originate or be in the
>> > collective control of the QGIS.org project.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I think the definition of what is an official QGIS product warrants
>> > further discussion and I really hope this email starts a healthy and
>> > reasoned debate on the issue in the spirit in which this message itself
>> > is sent.
>> > 
>> > Best regards
>> > 
>> > Tim
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
VP> _______________________________________________
VP> Qgis-psc mailing list
VP> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
VP> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc