Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
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
Robert et al
I cant think of any project other than James that makes use of such
naming convention, but I guess it is more important that things stay
consistent within the same project.
Forget my suggestion
Oleg
