I've come to understand that a name Apache FOO does not violate the trademark FOO. As such, I don't think there's any problem with Apache Silk.
Sanjiva. On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 00:49 -0500, Henri Yandell wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > Apache Silk it is: > > > > [17] Apache Silk > > [ 0] Apache Web Bricks > > [ 0] Apache Web Commons (branding issue with Commons) > > [ 3] Apache Web Components > > [ 0] Apache Web Parts (conflict with Microsoft and sf.net) > > > > 20 +1 votes with 1 abstainer. > > > > So now we can finish the proposal, get it voted on and start with the fun > > stuff. > > Okay. I've been unable to get this resolved - for the following reasons: > > * Segue's SilkXxx web testing suite seems to clash on the trademark. > > * General lack of response on PRC on the trademark issue. We lack decision > making on the grey line at the moment - but after having this sit on the > back burner for many months I'm of the opinion that we clash too much with > the Segue trademark. > > * Jakarta Web Components matches Jakarta Http Components in pattern and > fits the proposals I've made on restructuring Jakarta (ie: they're both > groupings). > > So I'd like to suggest we go ahead with Jakarta Web Components. > > Any thoughts? And sorry for taking so long to bring this up, it's been on > my todo list since ApacheCon. > > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
