just to be clear, my last email was for a case of a name with flex but without apache, I think a domain name with both is totally off limit and will legitimately trigger a cease and desist for sure, i would even recommend against it even with Apache approval, it's too long and sounds like someone is tracking to use a brand to catch people.
This said, I dare Apache lawyer to send a cease and desist for domain name with just flex. But we will know soon, I registered iflex.mx a while ago and i surely do not intend to ask anyone's permission because I surely do not believe it would be appropriate for a nonprofit open source project to say anything about it. We had Flex websites all over the place under Adobe, a commercial enterprise, and it just was fine. I do not see any legitimacy to see other than zealous Apache members. It is because of that overly zealous attitude that I stopped participating in this mailing list all at once past its first few weeks. Months later, this week, sure enough first day I come back I find this thread. You have to chill guys, you are hurting yourself and apache flex. I don't care for Apache, but I surely do for Flex. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Stephane Beladaci < adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Again there is what the Apache lawyer wants and there is what we can do. > They defend Apache's interest, not ours. Amd there is what they want, and > what they can't do anything about. And then there is what they can do > something about with huge risk to hurt Apache's reputation more than > protecting its interest. It is not because Apache does not like us to do > something that we can't. > On Jan 3, 2014 11:22 AM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <nicho...@spoon.as> > wrote: > >> From previous conversations with the Apache lawyers (revolving my own user >> group), I doubt they will let any domain names with the words "apache" and >> "flex" fly. When they first took over the trademarks they were very >> unsettled with the amount of community sites that used the word "flex" by >> itself. >> >> It if were a site with the domain name of "theflexexamples.com" or >> anything >> without the word "apache" in it, I would see no problems with it at all. >> Hell, I'd probably throw in the $35 to register such a domain and give it >> to Stephane. My biggest concerns are : >> >> - Apache, by US law, has to defend its trademarks. I'd hate to see one >> of >> our community members get a cease-and-desist, or just have their domain >> taken away from them directly from the registrar (yes, it happens). >> - As a member of the PMC, I'd personally worry about what content ends up >> on that site over time and how the community overall would see it. I'm >> all >> for a fan site, but one with a name tied so closely to our project I think >> we would need to make sure that derogatory or incorrect content, or >> content >> that we can't officially talk about doesn't end up there and be perceived >> by the world as coming from us. For example a site like that publishing a >> list of what they expect to be in the "next release" could be confusing >> for >> people who are not directly connect to the project. >> >> All that being said, I'd love to see some of the content -- and I'd love >> for our site to directly link to whatever it ends up being so we have more >> fresh content and not links to examples built on Apache 4.1 and 4.2 on our >> site :) >> >> -Nick >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> > I would appreciate it if you would not waste resources of Apache by >> > testing them on this topic. There are a set of lawyers who volunteer >> time >> > to Apache to guide them on legal issues. Let's wait until we get an >> > official reply from trademarks. >> > >> > In the meantime, I'd like to hear from the other PMC members. If it is >> ok >> > with trademarks, is it ok with us that Joe should be able to use >> > apacheflexexamples.com? I stated my concerns earlier in this thread. >> > >> > -Alex >> > >> > On 1/2/14 8:10 PM, "Stephane Beladaci" <adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >You mean in case Trademark refuse to allow its use and outside lawyers >> > >confirm it is not fair use righr? Because Trademark, whoever that is is >> > >not >> > >god and I start to really dislike this conversation. Let me build one >> > >then, and tell you when its on production and if you don't like it >> tell >> > >trademark to sue me. There is no such thing as bad publicly for >> > >individuals >> > >in those cases. Which is why Apache would not sue, wanna bet? >> > > On Jan 2, 2014 7:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi, >> > >> >> > >> > 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. >> > >> I don't think anyone thinks the site shouldn't exist, and there's >> > >>several >> > >> people that think it's a good idea and are willing to help out. >> > >> >> > >> > 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 >> > >> If he worked for Adobe as a full time person then they probably do >> own >> > >>it. >> > >> That may be an issue if you intend to reuse some of the examples on >> your >> > >> site (and if the content is ever donated to Apache), although I do >> note >> > >> they were CC licensed. >> > >> >> > >> > It is a "fan site", and will constitutes fair use in my opinion, >> end >> > >>of >> > >> story. >> > >> I think your good intentions are clear and are certainly not the >> issue >> > >> here. >> > >> >> > >> Just be aware that the ASF view is that: >> > >> ... "and please realize that the use of ASF trademarks in your domain >> > >> names is generally not "nominative fair use." "[1] >> > >> >> > >> > 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. >> > >> That sounds like a good approach, but I'd suggest you have a backup >> > >>domain >> > >> name just in case trademarks decide it can't be used. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> Justin >> > >> >> > >> 1.http://apache.org/foundation/marks/#domains >> > >> > >> >
