On 1/2/14 6:56 PM, "Joseph Balderson" <n...@joeflash.ca> wrote:
>And here I was thinking that suggestions would come in the form of what >people >would like to see on the actual site, not whether the site could actually >exist. Yeah, unfortunately, your choice of domain name tripped an alarmŠ To be clear, I'd love to see you build a site of examples. It is only the domain name that is in question. > >Flex has a history and a community before Apache ever got involved. And >part of >that community was the old flexexamples.com website: it was not owned >directly >by Adobe, it is owned by Peter Dehaan, who happened to work for Adobe: he >still >retains the ownership of the site and its content AFAIK. The intent is for >apacheflexexamples.com to be continuance of that same tradition: a >one-stop >micro-tutorial site where beginners can go to see Flex in action. Again, Adobe apparently did not enforce that every domain name had to have approval, but that doesn't mean that Apache can't or shouldn't. Adobe and Apache have different business goals. I will say that in getting legal clearance for all of the donated Adobe code, I've discovered that many of us on the Adobe Flex team unwittingly broke a lot of policy rules by posting code on our blogs. I don't know if Peter got a specific agreement from Adobe, but if he didn't, the content is actually owned by Adobe. I'm not sure how the Adobe employee agreement would interpret ownership of a domain name. > >It isn't there to be an end-all-be-all site of Flex tutorials. It won't >claim to >be directly affiliated with the Apache Foundation: in fact I plan to have >a >trademark disclaimer at the top of every page just to keep the suits >happy. It >will include a "blogroll" of links in the margin to link users to the >actual >apache site resources. And if the time comes for me to discontinue my >involvement of the site I will happily donate it to Apache Flex. Since you keep bringing up Peter's site as an example, I have to point out that, once he left Adobe, he stopped contributing to the site and has not found motivation and/or time to contribute it to Apache. Hence I have the same concerns about your site and thus have expressed reservations about having a prominent domain name associated with it. But if trademarks says it is ok, and the rest of the Apache Flex PMC is ok with it, then I certainly won't stand in the way. > >It is a "fan site", and will constitutes fair use in my opinion, end of >story. I >am not doing this to sell anything, or to "confuse" the authorship of >Apache >"properties", I am doing this for the community of beginner Flex >developers, and >to help increase adoption of Apache Flex. > >Alex, I am in awe of your contributions to Flex and I really respect your >stance >on correctness of use. But I feel that all of this debating about >appropriateness of trademark use is a little moot until it's actually >ready to >launch. I'll release a private beta when the time comes, and all three of >us -- >me, the apache suits and the flex team -- can revisit the whole issue at >that time. Actually, I'm just trying to save all of us time. If Apache is going to say that you can't use the proposed domain name, let's find out now, then you only have to brand your site once and we only have to review it once, and it won't get picked up by the search engines with the wrong domain name, etc. Otherwise, you're going to show us something someday, and then if Apache says no, we'll have to review it again after you've rebranded it and we'll be looking for legal details instead of the site's overall content. -Alex
