On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]>wrote:
> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700: > > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for > > the project. > > You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that > predates OOo being proposed as a podling. > > Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always > request an exception (talk to trademarks@). But, with my Member hat on, > this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not > work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste. > Ah Daniel, many of these folks didn't "ask" to join Apache. This is a situation that has been rare at Apache until now (modulo Apache Subversion). Normally a project is obscure when it starts at Apache and the only job is to find a name nobody has used before. OpenOffice.org is a very valuable brand worldwide...possibly equal to Apache in value. As a Member (and Mentor of this project) I think the right thing to do is to use the Apache prefix along with the (regrettable but established) .org suffix. I do think ASF should ask trademark law counsel whether doing so would be considered dilution of the brand, however. Danese
