On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it was Robert who sugguest it in the past > > Anyway I would be happy without the prefix too. > > So +0
the reasoning behind the prefix goes like this. apache mime4j is the trademark. anyone can produce another jar and call it mime4j. if someone produces an apache-mime4j jar with nefarious or substandard contents then apache is in a stronger position. but i don't think this has been written in stone and dates back to the misty old days. if people prefer just mime4j then ask on legal discuss for a definitive modern ruling. - robert
