On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 3/13/11 10:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote: > >>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote: > >>>>> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >>>>>> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> <snip/> > >>>>>>> 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 > >>>>> Why, exactly? > >>>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called > >>>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no > way > >>>> of stopping abuse. > >>> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable > from 0 as a double? > >> For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think > >> the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0. > >> > >>> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time > convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making > changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk. Especially when > these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential > volunteers. > >> I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression. > > The impression that we are a commercial entity, or that we are > > representing the interests of other commercial entities. Most > > people see trademarks as only meaningful in commercial settings. We > > have a more sophisticated view @apache that views trademarks as > > meaningful outside of commercial use, or more precisely as limiting > > commercial use of the names. My admittedly minority view is that > > aggressively "claiming marks" does not help our public image. > > > > I will shut up about this now and we can proceed with the changes, > > since this is consistent with ASF policy and we do not have > > consensus to challenge that policy. > > It depends on component. > > We should always claim "Apache Commons XYZ". Seems weak in terms of > energy given that we claim "Apache", but presumably there are good > reasons why "Apache Commons XYZ" gives us more value/power/something > than Apache on its own does. > > For a unique name, for example, Sanselan, we should state our claim of: > > "Apache Commons Sanselan" > "Commons Sanselan" > "Sanselan" > > At least I'm assuming that trademarks@ will want to keep a name like > 'Sanselan' as close to its chest as possible. > > For a non-unique name, for example, Math, we should state our claim of: > > "Apache Commons Math". > > [where claiming 'Math' is ludicrous, and claiming 'Commons Math' is > only a shade less ludicrous]. > > This does assume that we're not claiming 'Commons'. If we claim > 'Commons', then 'Commons Math' is a direct follow-on; but claiming > 'Commons' is against our aims imo. > > On the technical side - we can't do this in a generic commons-build > way imo. We have to split our names into 'hug close' and 'ludicrous' > and do footers accordingly. > Should all the logos include "Apache"? Gary > > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
