Steve, I value your opinion but please get the facts straight if you're going to post publically about this.
Nothing has changed recently, it's been this way for two years at least. The license document asks you to ask permission to use Moodle's brand to make money from Moodle services and you haven't.
Comparing Moodle to Microsoft doesn't make sense and to do so is misleading. They sell their software, Moodle doesn't.
The ONLY business model we have is services, and those services are protected by a trademark, the same as many companies do. Without that there is less reason for companies to become Moodle Partners. Without some control, 1000 companies can offer Moodle services at will and I (and Moodle) get NOTHING from it.
None of this applies to just talking about Moodle. Nothing stops you from using Moodle to run a business. Nothing stops you from using Moodle at any time. It's just the brand.
Martin-I think part of the misunderstanding here may be due to the fact that what you are calling a trademark is actually called a service mark here in the US. While it provides basically the same protection, it is applied to services, rather than goods. Here in the US, when we think of a trademark, we are talking about products, not services.
Yes, it's actually a service mark, thanks.
Yep, big difference. Our website has a bunch of SEC filings and you can type in servicemark or trademark to get a feel for the difference.
Hi,
This is for general US information. It is a subject that has fancinated me for over 20 years.
I was in the garmet trade and industry people considered my company was a fashion orientated business. Every season we came out with a new version. We made flannel sleepwear and nursing garments for mothers etc out of natural fibers. Once somebody used "my" name "Fit for Two". Another time I (as GM and part owner) sold defective products made for them with their labels slashed or removed in our Outlet store. It was clear the garments were defective, the issue was that I posted my customer's catalog page above the rack with their price circled without their permission. Both of these are probably trademark violations. Certainly both were copyright violations.
First website I got a hit on says something like: Trademarks are know as distinctive marks (but do not describe features of the goods or services).These marks consist of made-up words, ( such as Intel or Microsoft called "coined marks" or "fanciful marks"). A Trademark or service mark can also consist of letters, numbers, a sound, a smell, a color, a product shape, or any other non-functional but distinctive aspect of a product or service that tends to promote and distinguish it in the marketplace. The second site on my hit list says that unlike other countries, trademarks don't have to be registered in the US. I could go on but the internet will reveal similar results.
There is an interesting difference between US copyright, patent and trademark definations. That is why lawyers get the big money. I was told that I could copyright (instead of patent, an expensive process) a garment, just like one of my customer's copyrighted their catalog, or an author a book.
I can hear my sister (who gets paid the big bucks) telling me it is not that simple. My two pence is that simple, uses less words than the big bucks but is just a free opinion with little value in a US court of law
Martin has a US trademark and he can set his rules about the use of the name Moodle.
The GNU license is a different kettle of fish.
Chris
This is for general US information. It is a subject that has fancinated me for over 20 years.
I was in the garmet trade and industry people considered my company was a fashion orientated business. Every season we came out with a new version. We made flannel sleepwear and nursing garments for mothers etc out of natural fibers. Once somebody used "my" name "Fit for Two". Another time I (as GM and part owner) sold defective products made for them with their labels slashed or removed in our Outlet store. It was clear the garments were defective, the issue was that I posted my customer's catalog page above the rack with their price circled without their permission. Both of these are probably trademark violations. Certainly both were copyright violations.
First website I got a hit on says something like: Trademarks are know as distinctive marks (but do not describe features of the goods or services).These marks consist of made-up words, ( such as Intel or Microsoft called "coined marks" or "fanciful marks"). A Trademark or service mark can also consist of letters, numbers, a sound, a smell, a color, a product shape, or any other non-functional but distinctive aspect of a product or service that tends to promote and distinguish it in the marketplace. The second site on my hit list says that unlike other countries, trademarks don't have to be registered in the US. I could go on but the internet will reveal similar results.
There is an interesting difference between US copyright, patent and trademark definations. That is why lawyers get the big money. I was told that I could copyright (instead of patent, an expensive process) a garment, just like one of my customer's copyrighted their catalog, or an author a book.
I can hear my sister (who gets paid the big bucks) telling me it is not that simple. My two pence is that simple, uses less words than the big bucks but is just a free opinion with little value in a US court of law
The GNU license is a different kettle of fish.
Chris
Here's how I understand it. I get the impression it is something like Roto-Rooter (a company that provides plumbing and drain unblocking services). I could set up shop, using a lot of the same tools, equipment (because the companies making these sell them to anyone, just as Moodle can be obtained by anyone) and maybe even techniques that Roto-Rooter uses, but I can't call my services Roto-Rooter and perform those same services under that name. I could perform them calling myself the Plumbing Man though. I could probably start a catering company and say that my lunch sandwich delivering process was called Roto-Rooter because it wouldn't interfere with the Roto-Rooter plumbing services and they probably didn't think to register Roto-Rooter for catering services.
Just for the record:
1. My company was (is) clearly called KentuckyClassroom.com.
2. I offered (among other things) Moodle services through my company and recognized the word as a trademark and the fact that my company was not affiliated with Moodle.
Now, I simply offer LMS services and all seems to be fine.
There is a business down the road from my house called Joe's Auto Repair. He offers service on Fords and Chevrolets...he doesn't pretend to be them or their "authorized service provider", he is just making an honest living servicing those vehicles.
Steve
Yes, that is the theory in a nutshell. Good example.
And timely, as I was woken up this morning by the sound of a loud engine on one of those septic pumping truck at work at my neighbor's motel. "Stay back or I'll Flush" was sucking away at 7:30. Wonder if they have a copyright on that or a trademark on the friendly waving skunk?
In my previous post with two personal examples, everything worked out the way it should. This will sound familiar: an apology followed by a correction was all it took to satisfy everybody.
I apologize for not mentioning the happy ending.
And timely, as I was woken up this morning by the sound of a loud engine on one of those septic pumping truck at work at my neighbor's motel. "Stay back or I'll Flush" was sucking away at 7:30. Wonder if they have a copyright on that or a trademark on the friendly waving skunk?
In my previous post with two personal examples, everything worked out the way it should. This will sound familiar: an apology followed by a correction was all it took to satisfy everybody.
I apologize for not mentioning the happy ending.
In my previous post with two personal examples, everything worked out the way it should. This will sound familiar: an apology followed by a correction was all it took to satisfy everybody.
Good point Chris...
I apologize for my infringement on the Moodle trademark. It has been corrected and it won't happen again.
Steve
"Steve, I value your opinion but please get the facts straight if you're going to post publically about this."
I value your opinion as well and I do think I have my facts straight....if not, please let me know where I'm going wrong here.
1. I have a consulting business called KentuckyClassroom.com where I offer (among other things) Moodle services.
2. You're email told me I was violating your trademark by saying the word "Moodle" on my consulting site where I was offering these services.
I assume we are in agreement on these facts?
So, I have voluntarily removed the word Moodle from appearing anywhere on my site. My question is simple....Is this satisfactory to you?
Or, are you really saying that your "trademark" prevents anyone from not only "saying" the word Moodle, but from actually providing any Moodle services for which they get paid, unless they are a Moodle Partner?
I would really like to know the answer to this question and I'm sure others on this site would also. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there doing Moodle training and getting paid for it. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there doing Moodle consulting and getting paid for it. As has already been pointed out, there are a lot of webhost out there advertising Moodle installs through fantasitco and they are getting paid for it.
And yes, I am posting publically about this because it is a very public matter that could have a great impact on this community. Based on your position stated in this thread, any organization who is considering implementing Moodle should understand that the "only people" who may provide them with Moodle services are Moodle partners--otherwise, they will be doing business with trademark violators. That's pretty big news that needs to be publically discussed and understood. And if that is incorrect, then I think it needs to be cleared up, because I'm confused.
Please understand that this is not personal...I really admire what you have built here with the help of a very large community of volunteers around the world. And, I also value the fact that there are Moodle Partners out there who provide professional Moodle services. But to say that no one else can provide those services unless they do so free of charge is pretty amazing.
You are correct about one thing...I haven't asked your permission to make money providing Moodle services...I haven't asked WordPresses permission, or phpBB's permission, or WebsiteBakers permission either.
So is that what this is all about...you want to be asked before anyone can make money on this?
I think you really need to step back and take an objective look at your position on this because, in my opinion, it could be a real big problem in the future.
Now, to the heart of the matter for me. Your email made the following request:
"Please remove references to Moodle commercial services from your website immediately."
I have done so as you can see here: www.kentuckyclassroom.com Does this meet with your approval and alleviate your concerns?
Steve
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=qti6i1.2.1
You could name it SteveLMS and sell the same services and Moodle and even register the name SteveLMS and have no legal problems. However, as one can see from past responses on the site to people doing just that with Moodle you will incur the social wrath of this community.
You could name it SteveLMS and sell the same services and Moodle and even register the name SteveLMS and have no legal problems. However, as one can see from past responses on the site to people doing just that with Moodle you will incur the social wrath of this community.
Thanks N, but I have no interest in this.
I'm not trying to be sly, cunning, or devious here. I am simply waiting for an answer as to whether this is really about putting a name (Moodle) on a for-profit site, or whether it is really about restricting anyone from providing a service unless they are a Moodle partner.
Based on some emails I've received, others are interested in this answer as well.
Steve
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.
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).