On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Christopher wrote: > > Okay, so we've been having a long discussion regarding trademarks as the > > project transitions from fluo.io to fluo.apache.org on the incubator > list ( > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/69a0c4befd56240ac642c4912e7497ea53720920a459e923f5cf7e91@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > ). > > Several issues arose, and Keith, Mike and I have been discussing what we > > think is the best plan forward. > > > > What we think is best: > > > > 1. Create a branch in the incubator-fluo repo for the resources, and do > an > > Apache release of the checkstyle/formatter rules in that resources jar. > > +1 > > > 2. Update the parent POM to use that resources jar instead of the > > previously released io.fluo one. > > Is there are reason these resource jars were not included with the > parent pom release? > > Not a very good reason. The main reason is that the released artifact already existed and was suitable. There's also a chicken-egg issue that makes things a bit annoying doing new releases of the resources object... because it can't depend on the parent POM. It's also versioned separately. But mostly, there was no immediate need for a new one any time soon when the current one works fine. > > 3. Donate fluo.io to the ASF to do what they wish with it. > > I'm still catching up on things, but this seems *highly* unnecessary to > me. See http://getkudu.io/. The ASF cannot *possibly* be in the business > of controlling anyone who wants to register a domain name and point it > at some *.apache.org. Given what I've read, the fluo.io redirect present > is fine. and does not need to be addressed further. > > If you haven't caught up on the reading, there's more... the redirect should not have been there. The fluo.io was the website for all of the projects in the github.com/fluo-io organization, not just fluo. We also just don't really have a compelling need for the domain... and it's probably still got a few months on it before it expires. It's not so much about ASF controlling who points/redirects to Apache. It's more about the fact that it contains (what will be, upon graduation) an Apache trademark. > > 4. Replace/Remove any links to fluo.io on the fluo.apache.org website. > > Again, IMO, this is not necessary, but it should be clear the > distinction between "Apache Fluo (incubating) Components" and "Related > Projects". I feel like that was at the core of John's arguments on > general@incubator. > > You're right, but if we're abandoning control of the domain, we'll want to make sure all the relevant stuffs are on fluo.apache.org. We can still link to any related projects on the GitHub.io pages using the org.github.io domain directly. > > 5. Open a discussion on [email protected] to determine whether the > > GitHub organization "fluo-io" should be renamed, and what would be an > > acceptable name for a GitHub organization containing fluo-related 3rd > party > > projects. Also determine whether it is acceptable to use the trademark > for > > fluo-related extensions repository names (eg. "fluo-stress" and > > "fluo-quickstart"). > > My feeling is that with proper distinction that "fluo-io" is not > affiliated with "Apache Fluo (incubating)" and the ASF but are related > software projects would be fine. Admittedly, I'm not sure the reasoning > behind wanting to keep them separate (was there a reason these were not > included in the original donation?) and bringing them under the ASF > umbrella would make sense to me. > > As discussed on the thread, some of the projects are not appropriate for ASF, and were not part of the original donation. I agree with your assessment (and I also made the argument) that "fluo-io" can be properly distinguished from "Apache Fluo" and the ASF, with some effort. That would be the position we'd bring to trademarks@. But also, if we give up the domain "fluo.io", either by donation to ASF or by letting it lapse, it will not longer make sense for the GitHub org to be called "fluo-io", and it might make more sense to rename it to something like "fluo-tools". Regardless, if it has "fluo" in the name, we'll want to get it cleared as an approved use of the trademark. > Regardless, VP of trademarks has a much heavier weight of opinion than I > do. A healthy discussion sounds great. > > > 6. Complete the PODLINGNAMESEARCH, so all this effort to protect the > "Fluo" > > trademark isn't done in vain. > > +1 this isn't that hard to do either. Feel free to ask for help/guidance. > > Please help. :) But seriously, we did create the JIRA issue, but have not yet contributed to documenting the fact-finding there yet. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-109 > > I'll go ahead and get started on item 1, because I think that should be > > relatively easy to do. > > >
