I’d suggest thinking long and hard about this. Would you rather deal with a name change now, or 4 years from now as a TLP?
It may sound like a remote possibility, but trust me, these things can and do happen. -Taylor > On Jun 7, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: > > As some in Pulsar community are already aware, one of the pending > tasks for Pulsar project to complete the "name search task". > > A JIRA task was opened to collect facts around usages of Pulsar > name: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-141 > > I had forwarded that to trademarks@ and this was the response > from Mark Thomas. > >> Pulsar is a very popular name for software. >> >> I don't see any obvious conflicts but given the popularity of the name >> it is likely, in a global marketplace, that there will be some. >> >> Should the project wish to register the "PULSAR" mark in the future, it >> is uncertain whether the ASF would be able to. Registering "APACHE >> PULSAR" is unlikely to hit any difficulties. >> >> It is more likely than usual that an infringement will emerge in the >> future that would require the project to rename. >> >> The podling needs to make a choice. Either: >> >> a) continue using PULSAR and accept that: >> - there are likely to be some restrictions on how the name is used >> (primarily that it always has to be APACHE PULSAR) >> - it is more likely than for most ASF projects that the project >> will be required to rename due to an infringement >> >> or >> >> b) pick a new name >> >> No rush on this. The podling should take time to discuss this. > > > Therefore we need to take a decision on this matter. > > My personal inclination is to continue to use "Apache Pulsar" and > have that to be registered as a trademark of ASF. > > My reasoning: > > * We are anyway already always referring to "Apache Pulsar" > rather than just "Pulsar" > > * Changing name at this point in life of the project would be > very disruptive. We just spent the past year into building > some naming awareness and it would all vanish, not to mention > the huge amount of work in updating documentation, package > names, etc. > > * If a conflict arise later on, it might be easier to change > name at that point. Once the project has a larger community > and bigger recognition, changing name would not mean to > restart from scratch. > > > I propose to have anyone share they thoughs on this issue. Once > there is a prevalent inclination in the community, we can vote a > final resolution on the subject. > > Thanks, > Matteo > > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <mme...@apache.org>
