On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote: >> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e., >>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we >>> need to be prepared to defend all of these "trademarks" which makes >>> no sense to me personally. >> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a >> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks. >> >> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark >> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed >> anyway). >> >> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with >> @Trademarks. > > OK. I just asked on board@. They may toss it over to trademarks, > but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the > Board could require us to change. > > Please anyone else chime in with different opinions. I want to make > sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark. I think we should be claiming/protecting: - Apache Commons - Apache Commons Foo - Commons Foo Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
