On 13 June 2013 10:56, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > Ross, thanks for bringing this up! I'm happy to be a part of this > experiment. > > On 13 June 2013 09:13, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > >> "Better" yes - "required" before we can vote - no. My reasoning is >> that WSO2 have already agreed they will use a different name if VP >> Branding requires it. In fact they won't have any choice since the >> proposal clearly indicates the Stratos trademark will be assigned to >> the ASF. >> > > While owning the "Stratos" trademark would certainly put us in a position > of being able to ask WSO2 to stop using StratosLive. But there's no > guarantee that we would be successful.
That's true, but there is no change in that risk even if we give WSO2 an answer before the vote. What is more important (in my non-legal opinion) is a publicly archived statement from the WSO2 CEO stating they have no intention of abusing the Stratos mark that will be donated to the ASF. We already have that. It's only about the required order, not about the end game. Note, it is normal practice for pre-existing marks to be formally donated to the ASF during incubation, usually just before graduation. The former owner does not (usually) want to assign a mark that may become useless if the project does not graduate. Such graduation is not wholly under the control of the trademark owner. > 1. You need to be mindful of third-parties using your trademark in a > compound name. This is already encoded in the ASF trademarks policies - WSO2 have agreed to conform to those policies. > 2. You need to apply branding rules consistently. WSO2 have agreed to do so. Sanjiva - perhaps you can edit the proposal to this effect in order to help allay any fears. That is to include the statement you made earlier: "if StratosLive is too close to home we can certainly change it. Bit painful but not impossible." I don't want to hold up the vote for entry into the incubator on this issue. At the same time I don't want VP Branding to be in a position of having to come to a quick decision. We will have plenty of time during incubation to resolve everything to our satisfaction. Ultimately VP Branding will be able to object to graduation if the issue has not been adequately addressed during incubation. > We allowed Couchbase (and > others) to share our brand because they were seen as "friendly" to the > community. This is the root of why CouchDB has a problem today. I believe you a projecting that problem and its cause onto a different issue here. This is not about allowing WSO2 an exception to the existing policy. It is about giving WSO2, the Stratos project community (which includes you) and VP Branding time to work on a satisfactory solution *during* incubation rather than prior to a vote. In my opinion WSO2 have demonstrated they are willing to play by the rules. Ross --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
