On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Danese Cooper wrote: > 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.
+1. Please! Best Regards, Dave
