Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote:
Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org>
wrote:
Well said...
I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It simply
implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not.
But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display
name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change
the public display name ( Maven X Plugin -> X Plugin for Maven )
rather than the artifactId.
I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should
suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation.
Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages,
that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are fine
with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide.
Right now, what I recall, is we only voted "___ maven plugin" as the form
of use that we allowed for our mark.
Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they
decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant others,
but it would need to be a conscious decision.
I do not think that the display name is a real problem but just the
artifact id name pattern. Restriction has been made by the PMC and not
by trademarks@a.o, right?
The question is, does the PMC insist on that pattern even if, as Benson
has mentioned, the group id is different?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
