>We should also mention the current trademark issue with apacheflex.com
Just wanted to bring this up, but this was actually mentioned back in the September 2013 report [1]. Here’s an excerpt: TRADEMARKS -It was discovered that an external entity was using the apacheflex.com to redirect to their web site. They were notified and have changed the redirect to the Apache Flex website. They have offered to have Apache take over the domain apacheflex.com. We need to figure out how to do this. -It looks like the new version of Flex is going to be called FlexJS. We need to find out if we need to trademark that name. We will be contacting trademarks@ shortly. Chris [1] http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DRAFT-Apache-Flex-September-2013-Report-tp29440p32863.html Sent from Surface From: Alex Harui Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 9:26 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org On 6/5/15, 5:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >We should also mention the current trademark issue with apacheflex.com >and the licensing IP issues mentioned in the last board report has not >been fully resolved. Did you write to the apacheflex.com owner? My interpretation of Bertrand’s suggestion was that we’d report once someone from the PMC tried to contact them. What do you think we should say about the IP issues? -Alex
