Can I have my site added to Planet Drupal

Don't you think your blog's title is slightly overbearing?

Hm, you may also want to remove "The code on this website may be used for personal and education use only." Drupal is GPL.

To give some more guidance about the use of "Drupal" in the url or title you may want to review the draft trademark policy - http://groups.drupal.org/node/15023 - if you haven't already.

And even if every post on the site is going to be worthy of Planet Drupal, we still like to base feeds on a "planet drupal" term where possible.

Marking needs more info.

Since there are so many objections to this particular request, maybe a link to the guidelines/requirements for being included on Planet Drupal is in order. I would post it myself, but I cannot seem to locate it.

The problems with your site are mostly Drupal specific problems, not planet specific. And I am not the right guy to answer Drupal specific problems, so I could be wrong..

You need to rename your site title to: Eric's Drupal blog or Eric's blog about Drupal or similar, because you are violating Drupal trademark policy.
I'm not sure, but I think there is no problem with your site url, it is better to have thedrupalblog.com to be about Drupal than to be an another advertisement site.. Just do not claim that you are the Drupal blog..

And you should remove the GPL violation statement also, as add1sun said. It is no use for us, if it is not GPL..

My last remark is planet specific. You should enable anonymous comments, or the login with Drupal.org ID (I am sure you can change it later to d.o. openID). There is no rule for that (?yet), but it really helps.. I would like to correct you if you write a bad (or insecure) code, or spread false information, and it would be a pain to register on every Drupal blog just to able to do that..

There's no patch involved here.

yes, you are right, but your site needs work if you want it to be added to Planet, but I don't care about the status..

reopened issue: #200559: Formalize requirements and policies for the Drupal Planet

Um, it's not my site, Pasqualle. Read the names again.

oh, sorry about that..

Hello everyone,

Sorry for the delay, if I had seen these posts earlier I would have responded immediately. I apologize for violating the GPL license, it was not my intention. I would do nothing to hurt the Drupal community. I revised my homepage sticky post and copyright notice in the footer region. I also changed my page title from "the drupal blog" to "Eric's Drupal Blog". I enabled anonymous comments as well. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.

Best,
Eric

Added http://drupal.org/aggregator/sources/450

thanks Boris

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Please create a Drupal tag and we can add that to the planet. A recent off-topic post was in the planet, which frustrates people who read the planet to get Drupal related content.

http://thedrupalblog.com/taxonomy/term/227/0/feed

That is http://thedrupalblog.com/category/drupal-versions-tested/drupal-6x ?

Are you sure you don't want it to be called "Planet Drupal" ? As you can see, altering these listings can take time so you should choose a tag that will work in the future.

I see your concern, I will revise, please wait. Thanks for your patience.

http://thedrupalblog.com/planet-drupal-rss

Cheers,
-Eric

To clarify:

Feed: http://thedrupalblog.com/planet-drupal-rss
Page view of content: http://thedrupalblog.com/planet-drupal

Regards,
-Eric

I am changing the status of this ticket, it was previously set to: postponed "(maintainer needs more info)"

The requested information is as follows:

Feed: http://thedrupalblog.com/planet-drupal-rss
Page view of content: http://thedrupalblog.com/planet-drupal

I'm hesitant to add this site as it appears that it potentially violates the Drupal trademark policy. Especially considering the domain's words are 'The Drupal Blog' (thedrupalblog.com) it sure sounds like people could misinterpret this site as being an official blog of Drupal.

Agreed - tagging to alert Crell.

Moving this to postponed in the meantime.

Please explain what I can do to fix this and I will adjust accordingly.

Trademark policy is here: http://www.drupal.com/trademark fyi...

Okay, I finally have to chime in on this one. I personally aggregate this blog myself, and know Eric personally, and excluding his blog from the planet is not fair to those other Drupalists that might not find it otherwise.

@Dave Reid, @Greggles:

I'm hesitant to add this site as it appears that it potentially violates the Drupal trademark policy.

The drupal trademark info is best summed up in two locations: http://groups.drupal.org/node/15023, and most recently what I can find is http://www.drupal.com/trademark

If you scroll down to the area marked

A. You receive an automatic license when:

You exclusively use the Drupal trademark to either extend or improve the Drupal software, or to encourage the use of the Drupal software (in short "foster the Drupal software" ).
Examples of "fostering the Drupal software":

• a course entitled "How to use Drupal in your business" organized by a local non-profit organization;
• an open access monthly journal called "Drupal Coding magazine";
• an open source Apache plugin "JIT Compiler for Drupal";
• a freely distributed homebrew Drupal theme "John's Drupal Christmas Theme";
• a website "drupalhalloffame.com" with pictures of famous Drupal contributors;
• administering a database with Drupal bugs and corresponding workarounds.

Eric's thedrupalblog.com clearly could fit into the two areas marked in bold. His posts are on topic, to the point, and full of great drupal information to help developers. PERIOD.
There was notice earlier in this thread regarding "off topic posts". The only "off topic" posts I can locate in any recent fashion were related to subversion, and version control in general. I don't even agree with that point as those are VERY on topic points in the Drupal community, and if they are "off topic", then why are those sessions on CVS, Subversion, and other VC systems some of the most popular at Drupalcon and Drupalcamps?? Those posts are still highly relevant to the community of developers that find sites like this useful.

I don't want to turn this into much more of a rant than I already have, but I feel like the issues being presented here aren't really valid as to why this site has been removed from the Planet. The trademark issues are non-issues according to Dries himself and the current revision of the trademark document. I can understand if having a copyright at the bottom of the site (that is gone) is an issue, but there is no reason this site shouldn't be included. I've seen many on the list, much less useful, and much more off topic at times, or with less frequent valuable updates.

I feel like the hostility in this thread demonstrates why we can get more amazing Drupal developers involved in the community. This is highlighted by Webchick in one of her original posts about trying to get involved in the community. My own experiences have been similar, and it's taken me forcing people to listen to me, to even begin to make headway in a community of brilliant developers that sometimes just wants to keep the community to themselves, and exclude the up and coming drupal rockstars, and this has to stop.

@himerus: I fail to see hostility in this thread. We're concerned that a site violates the Trademark policy and are letting the people that know more about it handle it? We haven't even dismissed this issue completely. It's still postponed. Please let me know how exactly this was hostile and I'd like to help correct it.

To me, the domain also falls under the section about needing a license:

The use of the Drupal trademark suggests an "official link" between your product or service and Dries Buytaert / the Drupal Association (i.e., the product or service can be perceived as either emanating from Dries Buytaert / the Drupal Association, or being endorsed by Dries Buytaert / the Drupal Association).
Examples:
a domain name "drupalofficialfaq.com";
a domain name "drupalsupport.nl";
a company called "Drupal Services Inc.";
a course entitled "Drupal Exams".

The Drupal trademark is used as part of a domain name that covers either an entire category of products or services that are relevant to the Drupal community, that covers an entire target group of Drupal users or that is otherwise too generic.
Examples for which the license grant procedure must be followed: "drupal-design.com", "drupal-themes.co.uk", "drupal-modules.com", "drupal-support.nl", "drupal-hosting.com", "drupal-administrators.co.uk", "drupal-tshirts.com", "drupal-magazine.com", "mobiledrupal.com", "drupal-intranet.com", "drupal-services.com", "drupal-development.co.uk".

I do see your point about a blog fostering, but it's the part that suggests an official link because of the domain is why I was concerned. Hell, he might apply for a license and they tell him he's an automatic case and no problem.

EDIT: Completely forgot about the beginning half of this issue. Indeed the blog was added at one point.

Does Planet Drupal exist to help the community? If so, there is no question this blog belongs on the list. I check it regularly and at least once a week, usually more, there is something that helps me and that I didn't know before. It clearly provides information of value to the community.

With regard to the trademark question, it certainly looks like the site qualifies for an automatic license under the official trademark policy.

http://drupal.com/trademark

And of course, there are other sites and feeds listed in Planet Drupal that likewise use the word Drupal in the domain and/or site name.

As it will clearly be of benefit to the community, please add the site. Thank you.

@MMachnik: If there are other sites that are possible trademark violations, please report them in new issues or directly to the Drupal Association. It's not like we're actively trying to ignore them, but we (as individuals) can't see *everything* at all times.

@Dave Reid

I guess you are right in the regard where it can be tricky following the trademark wording. Hell, I don't even understand half of it, and only read it recently (maybe a month or so ago) when issues were coming up with the D7 redesign, and the wordmark on the new Drupal font, and that it could NOT be used, but the Drupal Drop was GPL, and free to use on our own sites, etc.

I do think that there is a fine line here, but what I gather from the trademark policy is simply this:
That it IS okay to use the word Drupal in your domain name or title, or the Drupalicon IF and ONLY IF your site is there for fostering the Drupal community in a non-profit manner, which blogs like this are. I even personally at one point bought a "Drupal-esque" domain name with the intention of running my business under that name. That site was built, but never promoted, and it wasn't until recently I realized how wrong it was, and that I couldn't use the name for that purpose at all.

Maybe I go overboard claiming hostility, but I do see posts like "Don't you think your blog's title is slightly overbearing?" in Comment #1. But then there are useful comments about how to remedy some basic details like the copyright in the footer. (I didn't even realize this was issue! I've been putting copyright notices in the footer of every site I ever have or build, even as useless as they are).

I do feel that a clear line should be drawn for all of us, YOU GUYS included so that we can all easily understand the policy, and how to fix our issues if they are there. We are here to benefit the community and further Drupal, and I hate the idea that we have to get caught up in legal jargon over minute details for those of us that even if minor rules were broken, were never broken with any ill intentions.

Thanks for your time, and your work on this and similar issues!

Dave, it looks like you are holding this site to a different standard than other sites on Planet Drupal. Those other sites that also use Drupal in the domain and/or site name belong there. So does this one.

With regard to not seeing everything at all times, it took me about five seconds to look down the list and see the sites I referred to. Therefore it certainly does look like there are two standards here.

@MMachnik: Don't waste my time. I asked you to file issues about them. I'm busy and have a job. I'm taking care of Planet issues on a case-by-case basis in my free time.

@Dave Reid, I am also busy, have a job and a family including a two month old. I am taking the time to reply to this issue because I think it is important.

It does not make sense to me that a question about adding a site that is clearly valuable to the community should still be an issue a year later. If you are concerned about wasting time, consider that this has been going on for a year and 30-something replies to this topic.

Please add the site. Thank you.

I'm closing comments on this issue until Larry comes by.

He has the ability to unlock the thread and leave his two cents.

Preface 1: The Drupal trademark is owned by Dries and licensed by Dries. Neither the Drupal Association nor the Drupal.org webmasters are responsible for the trademark. The questions raised here are out of propriety and respect for the trademark, not because there is any official responsibility at play. (That said, it's still a good question to be asking.)

Preface 2: Although I assisted Dries in the preparation of the trademark policy from the point of view of the Drupal Association, I am not its author nor am I an attorney in any jurisdiction anywhere. The following should therefore be understood as my informed opinion and analysis of the situation and not as a binding ruling.

Statement 1: The domain name "thedrupalblog.org" makes use of the Drupal trademark. I think we can all agree on this one. :-)

Statement 2: The conditions for determining whether or not an automatic license is granted are clear.

The relevant portions of the trademark policy are:

You will only be entitled to an automatic license when you are in any of the situations described under subsection A below, and not simultaneously in any of the situations described under subsection B below.

That is, an automatic license is granted if and only if you meet AT LEAST ONE criteria in list A and NONE OF the criteria in list B.

Let's examine those criteria.

List A: "thedrupalblog.org" needs to satisfy at least one of the situations listed in this section, of which there are 6. Reviewing the content on the site, it appears to be 99% Drupal-specific. That only non-Drupal blog posts I could find in the first several pages are on fixing issues in Subversion in which all of the examples were obviously Drupal-related and an article on upgrading PHP in certain environments, which is certainly relevant to Drupal. Thus, I believe the blog does pass this test under section A.1:

You exclusively use the Drupal trademark to either extend or improve the Drupal software, or to encourage the use of the Drupal software (in short "foster the Drupal software" ).

Note the addendum:

"Exclusively" means that any direct profits generated by using the Drupal trademark, must also be exclusively used to foster the Drupal software.

Although as the site in question does not appear to have any revenue generation capacity that is a moot point.

List B: If "thedrupalblog.org" satisfies at least one of the situations listed in this section, then it is not eligible for an automatic license, even when you would also be in any of the situations under subsection A above (also quoted). There are 9 possible situations listed in this section. The most relevant are:

B.1: The use of the Drupal trademark suggests an "official link" between your product or service and Dries Buytaert / the Drupal Association (i.e., the product or service can be perceived as either emanating from Dries Buytaert / the Drupal Association, or being endorsed by Dries Buytaert / the Drupal Association).

B.5: The Drupal trademark is used as part of a domain name that covers either an entire category of products or services that are relevant to the Drupal community, that covers an entire target group of Drupal users or that is otherwise too generic.

In my opinion, "THEdrupalblog.org" meets both of those criteria. It implies that the site in question is the, rather than a, Drupal blog, which implies an official link as well as laying claim to an "entire category of products or services", that is, blogs.

While "implies" is frequently a somewhat fuzzy term, I will also note section B.9:

There is any doubt as to how this policy should be interpreted or applied to a specific case.

Based on the above I believe there is at best significant doubt as to whether or not the site in question qualifies for an automatic license, and thus per the terms of Section B.9 it does not qualify. In practice I believe that there is little doubt, and the site fails the test of Section B and therefore does not qualify for an automatic license.

Additionally, the site fails to include the proper disclaimer as stated in the trademark policy:

"Drupal is a registered trademark of Dries Buytaert."

As I am not aware of any explicit license to the trademark, we must therefore conclude that thedrupalblog.org is in violation of the Drupal trademark.

As stated above, the Drupal.org webmasters are in no way bound to police the trademark. Enforcement of the trademark is the responsibility of Dries Buytaert and his delegates. However, my recommendation to them is to not publicize via Drupal.org services (such as Drupal Planet) any site that is, maliciously or inadvertently, in violation of the Drupal trademark.

In addition, I'd say that the choice of domain name is rather offensive towards other people blogging about Drupal and rather bad taste. => won't fix.