After talking with the proposers, the consensus is that the name will need to change, and everyone is fine with that. But the team wants to make sure we take time to choose a new name that won’t run into legal issues. So we would prefer to start incubation now concurrent with the name search rather than quickly pick a name now, hoping it will survive the trademarks process.
We realize this will cause some churn for infra, as we’ll end up changing names on mailing lists, etc. We’re open to suggestions on how to minimize this. So are we ok to start the vote? Alan. On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > The brand issue is an important one to be aware of, but we shouldn't let that > block progress on evaluating the proposal or working with the potential new > community to see how they'd fit with The Apache Way. > > A couple of other notes: > > - Finding *factual* references to similar software product names is a good > thing to do up front, so we can be aware of any potential conflicts for the > future. However it's not as useful to try to analyze what the potential > issues are on a public list. > > - The ASF is happy to host any like-minded project communities who are > willing to follow the core rules that we require of Apache branded projects. > Part of that hosting is offering the stable APACHE house brand for the > project community, as well as assistance in securing and maintaining their > project identity. > > That said, we also have to recognize that where there are third parties with > pre-existing uses of similar software product names, we can't necessarily > offer the same level of defense for such a project name. > > Depending on the case, we may decide that a podling community is willing to > accept the risk of future conflicts, and that's fine - as long as in those > cases we recognize that we may be forced to change a project name in the > future *if* the issue ever comes up. > > The trick with trademarks are that in virtually all cases, "it depends". The > details matter - both on the legal details of some potential conflict of > names, *as well as* the actual behavior of the parties involved. That is: > just because there is an apparent conflict of names does not always mean that > the two parties can't reach an agreement to each continue while recognizing > each other's brands. > > That being said, given the wide use of "stratos" as a name associated with > various cloud stuff these days, that I do recommend the proposal submitters > have a serious discussion about considering a new name. > > > - Shane (not subscribed, reading on archives) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
