Again, we have a fundamental disconnect here. I feel like you're not reading anything I've said:
You said: ...any organization who is considering implementing Moodle should understand that the "only people" who may provide them with Moodle services are Moodle partners
I've never said that! In fact, I explicitly said "Nothing stops you from using Moodle to run a business. Nothing stops you from using Moodle at any time. It's just the brand."
You said: ...to say that no one else can provide those services unless they do so free of charge is pretty amazing.
It would be if I had said that, but again, I've never said that. Anyone can provide services for Moodle if they want to, as long as they don't use phrases like those on moodle.com (Moodle Hosting, Moodle Support etc).
Your site is fine, no problems and good luck with it. I hope this thread brings you many google hits.
Your site is fine, no problems and good luck with it. I hope this thread brings you many google hits.
I'm not looking for Google hits....just a simple answer. I'm also sorry this has seemed to upset you. I have a clear answer now and I'm satisfied.
Thanks.
Steve
Steve,
There's an unfortunate side to trademarks... it is really easy to lose them if you are not seen as enforcing them. So if MartinD has a knowledgeable lawyer, he would have been advised to make tell people that they must _at least_ ask for permission, and to send "cease and desist" letters to those who don't.
It's part and parcel of the strange landscape of IP law we have today. Read the 'maintaining a trademark' section in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_trademark#Maintaining_trademark_rights_.E2.80.94_abandonment_and_genericide
OTOH, it may mean just that you should ask for permission
Perhaps friends of Moodle can use the mark if they ask for explicit permission? That'd allow both MartinD to keep control of the TM by the act of granting permission (don't laugh, that's how it works) and the community to refer to Moodle, even in professional / work environments, without diluting the MP trademark.
(Disclaimer: Catalyst is a Moodle Partner)
There's an unfortunate side to trademarks... it is really easy to lose them if you are not seen as enforcing them. So if MartinD has a knowledgeable lawyer, he would have been advised to make tell people that they must _at least_ ask for permission, and to send "cease and desist" letters to those who don't.
It's part and parcel of the strange landscape of IP law we have today. Read the 'maintaining a trademark' section in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_trademark#Maintaining_trademark_rights_.E2.80.94_abandonment_and_genericide
OTOH, it may mean just that you should ask for permission
Perhaps friends of Moodle can use the mark if they ask for explicit permission? That'd allow both MartinD to keep control of the TM by the act of granting permission (don't laugh, that's how it works) and the community to refer to Moodle, even in professional / work environments, without diluting the MP trademark.
(Disclaimer: Catalyst is a Moodle Partner)
Hi
I will like to thank both Steve and Martin for getting into this discussion. Steve had valid concerns (I had similar concerns and I am sure there will be more). Martin has clarified the issue appropriately. I wish best for future of moodle.
Thanks again.
Regards
Deepak Gupta
I will like to thank both Steve and Martin for getting into this discussion. Steve had valid concerns (I had similar concerns and I am sure there will be more). Martin has clarified the issue appropriately. I wish best for future of moodle.
Thanks again.
Regards
Deepak Gupta
Hi Martin & everyone,
I must admit I am a little confused by this...
As part of our company's consulting work quite often suggest that organisations use Moodle as the basis of a learning solution, and also provide training where required. We're not Moodle partners, but we do use one (Pteppic.net) as our hosting provider.
Does what you're saying mean that we are not able to use the name Moodle within proposals and other documentation? Or is it just the phrases "Moodle Consultancy" and "Moodle Training" that we wouldn't be able to use?
I do understand your justified requirement to protect the Moodle brand, and also the importance of building up the Moodle Partners brand, but like Steve, I'm not quite sure what we're now allowed to do?
Yours,
Mark
I must admit I am a little confused by this...
As part of our company's consulting work quite often suggest that organisations use Moodle as the basis of a learning solution, and also provide training where required. We're not Moodle partners, but we do use one (Pteppic.net) as our hosting provider.
Does what you're saying mean that we are not able to use the name Moodle within proposals and other documentation? Or is it just the phrases "Moodle Consultancy" and "Moodle Training" that we wouldn't be able to use?
I do understand your justified requirement to protect the Moodle brand, and also the importance of building up the Moodle Partners brand, but like Steve, I'm not quite sure what we're now allowed to do?
Yours,
Mark
I had the priviledge of discussing copyright/trademark issues and Moodle with Martin earlier this year and his approach was entirely as I expected and consistent with how other organisations protect their interests.
To give an example of how another organisation protects its trademarks Sun Microsystems will not allow you to describe your products if the description starts with the word Java, i.e. if you had a devlelopment tool they will not allow you to call it Java Builder, thus Borland named their product JBuilder, They objected to an organisation calling their product EJBoss so the name was changed to JBoss. They would not allow you to host a web service called Java Web Services but would probably not object if you call your product Web Services with Java. When writing a book about one of their examinations I called my book TigerTamer for Java, rather than Java TigerTamer. You can see the rather dull details of how Sun specify this at
http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/#10b
I'm not saying Martins approach is identical, just that it seems consistent with how people protect their interests, and indeed must protect them not to loose out.
Having received NastyGrams from Sun Lawyers in the past and I understand that it can feel like a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" situation, but it isn't.
To give an example of how another organisation protects its trademarks Sun Microsystems will not allow you to describe your products if the description starts with the word Java, i.e. if you had a devlelopment tool they will not allow you to call it Java Builder, thus Borland named their product JBuilder, They objected to an organisation calling their product EJBoss so the name was changed to JBoss. They would not allow you to host a web service called Java Web Services but would probably not object if you call your product Web Services with Java. When writing a book about one of their examinations I called my book TigerTamer for Java, rather than Java TigerTamer. You can see the rather dull details of how Sun specify this at
http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/#10b
I'm not saying Martins approach is identical, just that it seems consistent with how people protect their interests, and indeed must protect them not to loose out.
Having received NastyGrams from Sun Lawyers in the past and I understand that it can feel like a "cutting off the nose to spite the face" situation, but it isn't.
Thanks Marcus,
That's helpful.
So would I be right to say that we can use the word Moodle, as long as it's not the name of a product or a service that we offer?
So could I say, for example, "we propose to use Moodle to support your learning needs and will provide training in its use" ?
Mark
That's helpful.
So would I be right to say that we can use the word Moodle, as long as it's not the name of a product or a service that we offer?
So could I say, for example, "we propose to use Moodle to support your learning needs and will provide training in its use" ?
Mark
With the caveat that I don't claim to speak for Martin, I'd say that is true. We are all rogered if we cannot use the name Moodle to describe the tool we are going to use 
Yes, that would probably OK, it depends on the context. It would be best to ask just to be sure.
No problem, it's fine to use and talk about "Moodle" in proposals or whatever.
Mostly I'm only concerned with web-based advertising of generic Moodle services only. However, if you aren't sure, then please just contact me via moodle.com.
Mostly I'm only concerned with web-based advertising of generic Moodle services only. However, if you aren't sure, then please just contact me via moodle.com.
Thanks Martin.
Cheers,
Mark
Cheers,
Mark
Martin
A couple simple questions for you .....
Do the likes of the many "$5 per month" moodle hosters pay you a Royalty for every domain they host on their sites? If they don't for every site, then those organistaion using those sites are in effect breaching your licencing agreements in the context of your postings.
Are you prepared to close them all down or "grant them permission" to host on a zero contribution basis to ensure the product gets wider free publicity? A double edge sword.
If they are - then you should be reaping in a very healthy and steady income if the numbers of Moodle Sites regsitered out there is correct as per your listings on this site.
Indeed these places have been getting the same letters for a long time and many of them have modified their pages. None of them are so far paying anything (or you'd see them advertised here).