Problem is, you're the only person who's come out and said that. Cliff's
not looked into the legalities of trademarks yet and no one on the PRC had
a yes/no answer.
Hen
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
