# Trademark policy

**Project:** Open Brand Definition Specification (OBDS)
**Owner:** Kill The Dragon GmbH, Dürergasse 3 / TOP 4 / HOF, 1060 Vienna, Austria
**Contact:** lets@killthedragon.com

Copyright licensing is settled and permissive. See [`LICENSE.md`](LICENSE.md):
CC BY 4.0 for the specification and documentation, Apache License 2.0 for the
schemas, reference implementation, conformance suite and examples. Commercial
implementation needs no permission.

Names and logos are the one thing those licences deliberately do not grant.
CC BY 4.0 section 2(b)(2) and Apache 2.0 section 6 both exclude trademark rights.
This document says what that means in practice, and it is written to keep the
useful cases open.

## Registration status

No registration is claimed here.

Open Brand Definition, OBDS and the associated logo are used as unregistered
marks. Kill The Dragon GmbH claims only the rights available to it under
applicable law, and this document does not state or imply that any mark is
registered in any jurisdiction. If registrations are obtained later, this
document will be updated to say so and to name the jurisdictions.

## What you may do without asking

All of the following are fine, and no permission is needed:

- **Say what your software does.** "Implements OBDS 1.0", "OBDS compatible",
  "reads and writes OBDS manifests", "validates against the OBDS schemas",
  "built on the Open Brand Definition Specification".
- **Name the specification in prose**, in documentation, in a talk, in a paper,
  in a blog post, in a comparison, or in criticism of it.
- **Use "obds" in a descriptive package or module name**: `obds-parser`,
  `obds-validate`, `python-obds`, `acme-obds-adapter`.
- **Publish conformance results** you actually obtained by running the official
  suite, stating the version and the suites you ran.
- **Redistribute the licensed material**, including the specification and the
  schemas, under the terms of the two licences.
- **Fork the project**, provided the fork is not presented as the official one.

The rule behind all of these: if the statement is true and it describes your
relationship to the standard rather than claiming to be the standard, it is
allowed.

## What is governed separately

Ask first for any of these:

- **Naming your product OBDS**, or a name where OBDS or Open Brand Definition is
  the primary element rather than a descriptive qualifier. `OBDS Studio` as a
  product name needs permission; `Studio for OBDS` does not.
- **Using the logo or wordmark** as your own brand, in your own product identity,
  or in a way that suggests your organisation publishes or endorses the standard.
- **Claiming official status**: "the official OBDS implementation", "OBDS
  approved", "endorsed by the OBDS project", or anything a reader would take as
  a statement that the project stands behind your work.
- **Certification claims.** No certification programme is live. Nobody holds
  certified status, no badge exists, and no certification mark is registered.
  If a programme is established, this document will define the terms before any
  badge is issued.
- **Domain names and social handles** whose primary element is the project name.

## Modified copies

Both licences permit modification. If you distribute a modified specification,
modified schemas or a modified conformance suite, say so plainly and do not
present the result as the published OBDS release. State what you changed. This
is the Apache 2.0 section 4(b) obligation and the CC BY 4.0 section 3(a)(1)(B)
obligation, and it is also what keeps the format interoperable.

Do not use a version number of the published specification for a modified
document. Give it your own identifier.

## Enforcement

The aim is to stop confusion about who publishes the standard, and nothing else.
It is not to control who implements it, who profits from it, or who says
critical things about it.

If something here blocks a use that is honest and non-confusing, that is a
defect in this document. Write to lets@killthedragon.com and it will be fixed.