Agreed.<div><br></div><div>This is something that we must address, and has been on our radar. </div><div><br></div><div>We largely need to develop a reasonable trademark policy, similar to Jabber's perhaps, the affords productive and non-misleading uses of the mark without imperiling the integrity of things are OFFICIALLY sanctioned or sponsored by the OIDF.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks for raising this issue again.</div><div><br></div><div>If you could provide us with specific examples off-list where you're seeing confusing portrayals of the relationship between OpenID or OIDF and third-parties, that would be very helpful.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Chris<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Martin Atkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mart@degeneration.co.uk">mart@degeneration.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
In a bunch of places I see people thinking that <a href="http://openid.org" target="_blank">openid.org</a> is somehow the "main", "default", "primary" or only OpenID provider.<br>
<br>
Clearly this is what the OpenID trademark is supposed to protect the OpenID brand against.<br>
<br>
What can be done about this?<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net" target="_blank">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Chris Messina<br>Citizen-Participant &<br> Open Web Advocate-at-Large<br><br><a href="http://factoryjoe.com">factoryjoe.com</a> # <a href="http://diso-project.org">diso-project.org</a><br>
<a href="http://citizenagency.com">citizenagency.com</a> # <a href="http://vidoop.com">vidoop.com</a><br>This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>
</div>