|Re: [microprofile-wg] Requirements for compatibility logo usage|
A discussion has been going on in the MP marketing group regarding the requirements around use of the MP compatibility logo/brand.It started in this group thread:Additional context was in the marketing meeting minutes:Where the EMO states:“Our position is that being a member of the working group is a requirement to use the compatibility logo as well as passing the TCK and other requirements that may be included in the trademark usage guidelines for the MicroProfile Compatibility and Branding Program.”Red Hat stated, and Tomitribe agreed:"Red Hat strongly disagrees with this position. In the same vein that TCKs should not gate access to the patent grants associated with specifications, membership in the working group should not gate access to who can certify an implementation. If the EF cannot fund the associated management of the brand with the existing budget, then make the costs explicit and add a line item to the budget for it."In the "certify an implementation" statement, we were considering the usage of the MP compatibility branding assets as allowed based solely on passing the TCK.On today's community meeting we discussed other possibilities such as:
- Start with an MPWG requirement and see if deters usage.
- Start without an MPWG requirement and see if the cost of maintaining the brand program exceeds the budget.
- Have an additional for pay usage of the brandingWhat we are talking about here is the additional compatibility branding program assets in websites and product literature in addition to any factual TCK base compatibility claims which can be made freely and without any MPWG requirement.So we need to drive towards a resolution on this topic that can be voted on bye the Steering Committee to close this topic.
Back to the top