Jan, On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 Mar 2009, at 21:39, Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > >> Until not so long ago, one of the requests we used to ask projects in >> order for them to enter the ASF was to change name: that was seen as a >> way to ensure Apache would have been a fresh start on neutral grounds. > > That is totally understandable. I guess it didn't happen with CouchDB > because it was still "fresh" and did not enter the ASF from a commercial > background.
Yup, but still the trademark issue that has been brought here (with you guys contending there wasn't such a thing) makes me wonder if it wouldn't be the case to stick to the original policy - fixing CouchDB in the meantime. >> If you are to continue using the CouchDB name in your company, I'm not >> sure what the legal situation would be (it could be argued some >> trademark issues might be there) but, as you can see, you are likely >> to piss people off by sending the message that you are the ones >> "owning" the project which, in Apache terms, is a no-no. > > Chris said, and then I repeated that we are addressing the naming > issue :) We do not want to get into legal trouble nor do we want to > piss anyone off. I hope the fact that we're discussing this here proves > we mean it :) I have no doubt about your good faith and willingness to help. I'm looking forward to what you will be doing to ensure this problem goes away. >> You are >> absolutely fine in having commercial objectives and, ultimately, pay >> the bills, but the Wordpress case is not applicable here: Wordpress >> chose to walk on his own legs, hosting their project within their own >> infrastructure and no leverage on existing communities and branding. > > I didn't bring up Wordpress. Noah did and he is not part of the company. Yeah, sorry for the mixup. Point still stands, though. :) > The naming-issue is separate from the meritocracy. Actually, it's not. It's hard to have meritocracy without neutrality, and neutrality is hard to achieve without a sense of shared ownership of the project. Names are important, as having a "commercial arm" of CouchDB owning the very name of it would mean people would feel they'd be contributing to a project which is not, and will not, be theirs at any point in time, effectively turning contributions into free labor. So, the naming issue impairs meritocracy. > What other issues are there? None whatsoever - actually I wish you the best of luck with your endeavor. Ciao, -- Gianugo Rabellino Sourcesense, making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com (blogging at http://www.rabellino.it/blog/)
