RE: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Cliff Schmidt wrote: Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name collision with the old Sun codename Only because I hadn't seen Craig's e-mail first. :-) But I believe that we have ended up with a better name, anyway. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Aug 13, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Cliff Schmidt wrote: Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name collision with the old Sun codename Only because I hadn't seen Craig's e-mail first. :-) But I believe that we have ended up with a better name, anyway. In future, how should I handle this? I saw Noel's update to the wiki after I had posted my non-concern, so I figured that Noel had read my post and updated the wiki anyway. It turns out that Noel hadn't read my post. Should I have commented on the wiki to the effect that I didn't think it was an issue? Craig --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
RE: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Craig.Russell wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: Cliff Schmidt wrote: Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name collision with the old Sun codename Only because I hadn't seen Craig's e-mail first. :-) In future, how should I handle this? I saw Noel's update to the wiki after I had posted my non-concern, so I figured that Noel had read my post and updated the wiki anyway. It turns out that Noel hadn't read my post. It happens. :-) Should I have commented on the wiki to the effect that I didn't think it was an issue? Sure. And/or send an e-mail if you have a question. And Cliff even called my cell phone about it, and I suggested that he do just that: put a comment on the wiki or reply on-list. --- Noel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 30/07/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? Cliff, yes I do. As you may have seen from previous posts I've only just been catching up with this. My concern is that it is not appropriate for the incubator to continue to condone a practice which at best raises certain moral questions, and at worst can be seen as exploitative and often goes against the wishes of the communities it affects. The fact that Glaswegians may not feel particularly exploited, or that there is a precedent for proper nouns to be used for project names should not matter. What should concern the incubator is, as Robert said, continuous improvement. Please would you at least think about re-considering the name and trying to come up with a proposal which isn't also a proper noun? d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
http://www.glasgowsoftware.co.uk/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
If Apache is acceptable for the name of this organization then I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not. FYI, as a point of historical interest (and it's not that interesting), purely as a 'comment' on the Microsoft practice of naming their O.S releases after cities, we named a couple of releases of JavaBeans 'Glasgow' and 'Edinburgh', mostly because Graham Hamilton and I were from Scotland. Regards - Larry Cable ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Robert, Try Apache, and Geronimo. What about Jakarta? I think its time we just stopped this, Glasgow isn't probably too bad. But what if you'd picked Bristol? I'm not picking on you particularly, I just think its time we reconsidered the re-use of proper nouns. d. On 04/08/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems utterly ridiculous to me. Raises certain moral questions? Goes against the wishes of the communities it affects? Did the residents of Granada feel exploited when Ford decided to name a car after it? How about the Seat Ibiza? Do you boycott Penguin biscuits [a brand of biscuits in the UK] becuse you think it exploits penguins? Robert Resident of Glasgow |-+ | | Danny Angus| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | l.com | | || | | 04/08/2006 14:42 | | | Please respond to| | | general | |-+ --| | | | To: general@incubator.apache.org | | cc: | | Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) | --| On 30/07/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? Cliff, yes I do. As you may have seen from previous posts I've only just been catching up with this. My concern is that it is not appropriate for the incubator to continue to condone a practice which at best raises certain moral questions, and at worst can be seen as exploitative and often goes against the wishes of the communities it affects. The fact that Glaswegians may not feel particularly exploited, or that there is a precedent for proper nouns to be used for project names should not matter. What should concern the incubator is, as Robert said, continuous improvement. Please would you at least think about re-considering the name and trying to come up with a proposal which isn't also a proper noun? d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 04/08/06, Larry Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If Apache is acceptable for the name of this organization then I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not. I don't believe that it is. I certainly wouldn't condone it if it was proposed today. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
I agree that the debate on the name is not a useful discussion. If nobody else has a problem with the use of proper nouns in general can I suggest that we move back to discussing the more significant points raised by others? Regarding the openness of the standard and its processes, I would like to reiterate the point Gordon Sim made about treating the protocol standard separately from the Glasgow implementation. There are several other organisations involved in the AMQP standard - the organisations and people who are working on Glasgow are only a subset of the AMQP group. I personally am in favour of the technical protocol discussions taking place in public mailing lists, but neither I nor any other member of the Glasgow project can speak for the AMQP group as a whole. We can put a case forward for the lists to be made public and the members can vote to decide whether to adopt that proposal. Robert Larry Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: general@incubator.apache.org cc: 04/08/2006 18:12 Subject: RE: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze) Please respond to general If Apache is acceptable for the name of this organization then I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not. FYI, as a point of historical interest (and it's not that interesting), purely as a 'comment' on the Microsoft practice of naming their O.S releases after cities, we named a couple of releases of JavaBeans 'Glasgow' and 'Edinburgh', mostly because Graham Hamilton and I were from Scotland. Regards - Larry Cable ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name collision with the old Sun codename for their JavaBeans Activiation Framework (see http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GlasgowProposal?action=diffrev2=2rev1=1). I already mentioned that I didn't see this as a problem earlier in this thread and didn't hear further concerns, but am repeating this to be extra clear. There certainly is no registered trademark for it and the unregistered use of it appears pretty dead. I'm partly basing this off of Craig's post: On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For just a moment, I thought you were serious. JavaBeans Activation Framework, 1999. JavaBeans Drag and Drop, 1998. If Glasgow were really a software name to be worried about, I think we might have heard more of it in the last 6 years... Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 21:18 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote: Umm, I don't think so. As a TAG member, I encountered many discussions that were in members-only areas, and they are still going on (XML Schema, for example). The TAG would refuse to participate in any such discussion, which often required permissions be obtained to move comments from a private forum to a public one. W3C decisions are all made in public. Maybe you are referring to working groups that have been initiated in the past five years? Yes probably .. its a preferred policy that was set up like 4-5 years ago - definitely before the schema WG was set up. The TAG has always been public right? I'm not on the tag list now but I was on it for a long time! Anyway all the lists are archived and subscribable: http://lists.w3.org/ yep -- I figured Sanjiva was just thinking of the WGs in the Web Services Activity, which have tended to follow the policy he described. No its not limited to WS groups. There have been a few others like that, but my experience/observation has been that the majority of W3C WGs still do most of their work on private lists. It can still be an ordeal just to get some WGs to make f2f minutes available publicly. That's just a WG that's purely badly managed. Most groups that I know of now take minutes via IRC and run the log thru a script to gen the minutes immediately .. plus the raw minutes are avail on the Web immediately live thru Zakim. Anyway, we digress .. ;-). Sanjiva. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Brian, As the Champion for this proposal, I'd like to move this on to a vote. I just read all the related posts one more time, and I believe your concern below is the only one that hasn't been directly addressed (if I'm wrong about this, someone speak up). So, I want to offer my thoughts on it and you can tell me if there is more to discuss before voting. Otherwise, I'll probably start the vote within the next 12-24 hours, unless there are other concerns that pop up. See below. Cliff On 7/31/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am still uncomfortable with the AMQP spec ownership and process for two reasons. 1) The pessimistic and defensive one: Entering incubation at Apache implies Apache's endorsement. This is not what we mean, but it is how the world will react. This endorsement is partly the point of the proposal -- getting the ASF behind AMQP will give it a boost, and incubation is still not well understood, even inside the ASF :-( I don't see this as being different from any proposal that comes to the Incubator that wants to implement something other than a broadly accepted standard. We often get proposals for things based on some vendor's previously proprietary software. Sometimes the proposal includes committers employed by a couple independent companies; in this case, there are 3-4 employers. I definitely think we need to be careful about these projects, which is why I've always been a big fan of strong incubator branding. However, I do completely understand your concern about the ASF giving AMQP a boost too early. So, while there may be some boost from it getting incubation status at Apache (which we have to weigh up with all new projects), your concern is the same thing that makes me hesitant to advocate that the ASF should join the AMQP spec group. It would provide easy participation for ASF committers to the spec work, but it could also be a big endorsement that I don't think we should be giving to this group at this stage. I get the impression that Carl and the others would be happy to have the ASF; I'm just not sure it's the right decision for us...but none of this makes me thing this project should not be accepted for incubation. Do you feel differently? Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Brian McCallister wrote: If the goal is to create a standard protocol for messaging stuff, this requires a lot of buy in from a wide range of parties. Keeping the protocol behind closed doors and with a mysterious future sabotages this. Transparency is, I believe, a major requirement for accomplishing this goal, and the process is anything but transparent at the moment. I agree with you; a transparent, inclusive process is essential to building support for the protocol. I think all the members of the protocol working group would agree also. I would describe the future as vague in some of the details rather than mysterious. The intent has been made clear, namely that the protocol should be open and free for anyone to implement and should ultimately by controlled through an appropriate standards body. Before that happens, the current working group intends to work with a community of interested parties to ensure that the '1.0' release is fit for purpose. The current working group is open to new members and is eager for feedback from anyone. Both of these points would be lightened if the folks presently involved with the specification process seemed to recognize them as issues. Your first point, if I understood it correctly, seems to be a question for the ASF, rather than the AMQP protocol specification group. With respect to the second point, as I state above, I think the need for an open, transparent and inclusive dialogue with all interested parties *is* recognised as essential for the protocol to fulfill its objectives. To my reading, they are not recognized as issues, and there has been no public discussion by the folks actually involved with the protocol spec about this. The extent of it has been to say, more or less, that they doesn't think there is a problem. I'm not sure whether you are referring here to a specific post(s) on this list or some other forum. In general though, there seems to be two questions: (i) is openness important and (ii) is openness currently achieved. Am I correct in assuming your concerns are related to the second of these? Can you give more detail on what you feel the problems are? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/30/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? I'd also like commitment from the folks-behind-the-closed-doors that any AMQP TCK will be freely available for Apache to use (maybe only for those who sign the necessary NDAs like when working with JCP / J2EE TCKS). Unless Apache gets full access to the AMQP TCKs then its really not possible for it to really implement the specification. So far in the Glassgow code at Redhat I just see an implementation of AMQP. Is there a TCK somewhere to test compliance with the specification? -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
James, Anything that the Working group publishes / works on will be under the license already disclosed. As to TCK, there is a little bit of work in this area in the spec but it does not meet a definition of a TCK. The discussion is still ongoing as to what should the TCK look like. Many of the TCK's today are not that effective thus the debate. Also note there are no NDA's when working on any AMQP working group materials. Personally, I think the AMQP group will most likely publish something like a WS-Basic profile definition as apposed to writing a TCK, but that is not decided yet. If you would like to work on this please join the group or provide your suggestions for the group to consider. Regards Carl. James Strachan wrote: On 7/30/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? I'd also like commitment from the folks-behind-the-closed-doors that any AMQP TCK will be freely available for Apache to use (maybe only for those who sign the necessary NDAs like when working with JCP / J2EE TCKS). Unless Apache gets full access to the AMQP TCKs then its really not possible for it to really implement the specification. So far in the Glassgow code at Redhat I just see an implementation of AMQP. Is there a TCK somewhere to test compliance with the specification? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: The current working group is open to new members and is eager for feedback from anyone. Where are the archives of the discussions that have gotten it this far so I can understand what is driving the process and be able to contribute? What mailing list do I subscribe to in order to join the discussion? -Brian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Thanks for the feedback Carl. Brian McCallister wrote: On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: The current working group is open to new members and is eager for feedback from anyone. Where are the archives of the discussions that have gotten it this far so I can understand what is driving the process and be able to contribute? What mailing list do I subscribe to in order to join the discussion? -Brian - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Great! Is it the intention of the spec group members to switch the primary discussion and real work to the public list? Also, the question from my email before last is still unanswered: can the spec be forked if the process becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the Glasgow project? I realize this is really based on the terms in the license, but not being a lawyer, can you at least clarify the intentions of the group regarding this? -Brian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 8/1/06, Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, the question from my email before last is still unanswered: can the spec be forked if the process becomes an insurmountable obstacle for the Glasgow project? I realize this is really based on the terms in the license, but not being a lawyer, can you at least clarify the intentions of the group regarding this? Brian, Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec, itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF? Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec, itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF? If something were to happen to cause development to stop on the spec, the licensing terms were to change, etc, could folks (including Glasgow) basically use the last released version as a starting point for continued protocol development, or would the licensing terms (and grants of rights specifically tied to use of this protocol based on this document) force the project and existing users to throw things away and develop something new which would not infringe. -Brian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Brian McCallister wrote: On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec, itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF? If something were to happen to cause development to stop on the spec, the licensing terms were to change, etc, could folks (including Glasgow) basically use the last released version as a starting point for continued protocol development, - yes or would the licensing terms (and grants of rights specifically tied to use of this protocol based on this document) force the project and existing users to throw things away and develop something new which would not infringe. -Brian - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Thanks, Noted, I have been involved more with OASIS in recent years. Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing lists that are open to all. That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. Sanjiva.
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
FWIW, OASIS *public* email archives are available here: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ -- dims On 8/1/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Noted, I have been involved more with OASIS in recent years. Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing lists that are open to all. That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. Sanjiva. -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing lists that are open to all. That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. Umm, I don't think so. As a TAG member, I encountered many discussions that were in members-only areas, and they are still going on (XML Schema, for example). The TAG would refuse to participate in any such discussion, which often required permissions be obtained to move comments from a private forum to a public one. W3C decisions are all made in public. Maybe you are referring to working groups that have been initiated in the past five years? Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 8/1/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote: Brian, Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels, that said we are in the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and feedback lists for anyone to read, access and interact with the working group. Correction: W3C working groups do *all* technical work in public mailing lists that are open to all. That change occurred probably 5+ years ago. Umm, I don't think so. As a TAG member, I encountered many discussions that were in members-only areas, and they are still going on (XML Schema, for example). The TAG would refuse to participate in any such discussion, which often required permissions be obtained to move comments from a private forum to a public one. W3C decisions are all made in public. Maybe you are referring to working groups that have been initiated in the past five years? yep -- I figured Sanjiva was just thinking of the WGs in the Web Services Activity, which have tended to follow the policy he described. There have been a few others like that, but my experience/observation has been that the majority of W3C WGs still do most of their work on private lists. It can still be an ordeal just to get some WGs to make f2f minutes available publicly. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? snip / - There was also the question about how the AMQP specification will be handled and licensed. I started this thread with my feelings about that aspect (short version: it looks better than some other currently incubating projects, but I'd like us to come up with guidelines about what is acceptable at Apache, and then make sure this project adheres to those guidelines before graduating from the incubator). I am still uncomfortable with the AMQP spec ownership and process for two reasons. 1) The pessimistic and defensive one: Entering incubation at Apache implies Apache's endorsement. This is not what we mean, but it is how the world will react. This endorsement is partly the point of the proposal -- getting the ASF behind AMQP will give it a boost, and incubation is still not well understood, even inside the ASF :-( 2) The go conquer the world one: If the goal is to create a standard protocol for messaging stuff, this requires a lot of buy in from a wide range of parties. Keeping the protocol behind closed doors and with a mysterious future sabotages this. Transparency is, I believe, a major requirement for accomplishing this goal, and the process is anything but transparent at the moment. Both of these points would be lightened if the folks presently involved with the specification process seemed to recognize them as issues. To my reading, they are not recognized as issues, and there has been no public discussion by the folks actually involved with the protocol spec about this. The extent of it has been to say, more or less, that they doesn't think there is a problem. Lots of uninvolved people have chimed in with thoughts, but we (as I am one) are the peanut gallery and have no say in the current specification system. Finally, is the specification forkable if it becomes an insurmountable problem? If I weren't already committed to other incubating projects I would offer to help mentor as I really want this to succeed, meaning AMQP to become a de facto standard and the Apache implementations to be the best. Hope folk don't mind if I do stick in thoughts at least :-) -Brian ps: Tuscany being even more closed is not a justification for this getting it wrong. Tuscany's spec relationship is, in my opinion, a mistake, and one we have, hopefully, learned from. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal? - I think Glasgow is fine since it appears not to conflict with any registered software marks. I don't think we need to be worried about the university reference, and we obviously have several projects already named for cities. I'm also not worried about any company's old unregistered code names. - There was also the question about how the AMQP specification will be handled and licensed. I started this thread with my feelings about that aspect (short version: it looks better than some other currently incubating projects, but I'd like us to come up with guidelines about what is acceptable at Apache, and then make sure this project adheres to those guidelines before graduating from the incubator). As the champion for the project, I'll start a vote for this unless I hear unresolved concerns in the next 48 hours or so. I'll also make sure the wiki is updated, if necessary, before calling the vote. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/27/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does seem pretty strange to be naming software after a city, though. Apache Tokyo, anyone? Apache New York? But if you have to pick a Scottish city to name it after, I'd recommend Edinburgh - it's a much nicer city anyway. ;-) Yeah, why can't you be like the MyFaces podlings and name your projects after something more relevant like Caribbean islands? :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name that is free of any trademarks in the software space. ( not that easy) The new name for Blaze is Glasgow. I will update the wiki. Regards Carl. Carl Trieloff wrote: Naming of Blaze, Based on all the feedback provided, and after doing a trademark search, there are 14 trademarks( class 9) around blaze, some in the software space and none in this domain. As suggested by someone on this thread I would like to raise the bar and rename the project. We will look for a name that does not have a trademark in the software space. Suggestions welcome, please mail those to me - we will hopefully provide a new name for try out by COB tomorrow. Kind regards Carl. Carl Trieloff wrote: Thank you for all the feedback, would it be possible to post a link to this at least one registered for web software as mentioned by someone in the thread. This would be helpful to me. Kind regards, Carl. Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had read Roys comment to be that there they where not used in software in the related domain. I may have read more into the statement than I I think you misunderstood Roy's comment. Let me re-paste his comment as I think you are confusing what he originally said: In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered for web software. It is not an acceptable name for a podling. So, once again, according to his research, the name Blaze *is* already used in software already. -- justin - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name that is free of any trademarks in the software space. great ( not that easy) not easy at all :-) thanks - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name that is free of any trademarks in the software space. ( not that easy) The new name for Blaze is Glasgow. I will update the wiki. How about the Glasgow Haskell Compiler? http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Garrett Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the university name, Glasgow Haskell it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has conducted a trademark search of the word Glasgow and come up with no software-related registrations. Regards Carl. Garrett Rooney wrote: On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name that is free of any trademarks in the software space. ( not that easy) The new name for Blaze is Glasgow. I will update the wiki. How about the Glasgow Haskell Compiler? http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the university name, Glasgow Haskell it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has conducted a trademark search of the word Glasgow and come up with no software-related registrations. I don't know, it still seems awfully close to me, when I hear the word Glasgow in a software context that's the first thing I think of. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/27/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the university name, Glasgow Haskell it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has conducted a trademark search of the word Glasgow and come up with no software-related registrations. I don't know, it still seems awfully close to me, when I hear the word Glasgow in a software context that's the first thing I think of. The first thing I think of is the JavaBeans spec. Glasgow - the code name for add-ins to the JavaBeans specification. http://java.sun.com/products/javabeans/faq/faq.schedule.html -- Martin Cooper -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
I think of no associations with software projects when hearing Glasgow. Craig On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: On 7/27/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the university name, Glasgow Haskell it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has conducted a trademark search of the word Glasgow and come up with no software-related registrations. I don't know, it still seems awfully close to me, when I hear the word Glasgow in a software context that's the first thing I think of. The first thing I think of is the JavaBeans spec. Glasgow - the code name for add-ins to the JavaBeans specification. http://java.sun.com/products/javabeans/faq/faq.schedule.html -- Martin Cooper -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Hi Martin, For just a moment, I thought you were serious. JavaBeans Activation Framework, 1999. JavaBeans Drag and Drop, 1998. If Glasgow were really a software name to be worried about, I think we might have heard more of it in the last 6 years... Craig On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: On 7/27/06, Garrett Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garrett Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the university name, Glasgow Haskell it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has conducted a trademark search of the word Glasgow and come up with no software-related registrations. I don't know, it still seems awfully close to me, when I hear the word Glasgow in a software context that's the first thing I think of. The first thing I think of is the JavaBeans spec. Glasgow - the code name for add-ins to the JavaBeans specification. http://java.sun.com/products/javabeans/faq/faq.schedule.html -- Martin Cooper -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Friday 28 July 2006 11:48, Martin Cooper wrote: That _is_ the first thing I think of in relation to Glasgow Me too... Does that mean we have been around too long and should plan retirement ;o) Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Thank you for all the feedback, would it be possible to post a link to this at least one registered for web software as mentioned by someone in the thread. This would be helpful to me. Kind regards, Carl. Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had read Roys comment to be that there they where not used in software in the related domain. I may have read more into the statement than I I think you misunderstood Roy's comment. Let me re-paste his comment as I think you are confusing what he originally said: In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered for web software. It is not an acceptable name for a podling. So, once again, according to his research, the name Blaze *is* already used in software already. -- justin - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Naming of Blaze, Based on all the feedback provided, and after doing a trademark search, there are 14 trademarks( class 9) around blaze, some in the software space and none in this domain. As suggested by someone on this thread I would like to raise the bar and rename the project. We will look for a name that does not have a trademark in the software space. Suggestions welcome, please mail those to me - we will hopefully provide a new name for try out by COB tomorrow. Kind regards Carl. Carl Trieloff wrote: Thank you for all the feedback, would it be possible to post a link to this at least one registered for web software as mentioned by someone in the thread. This would be helpful to me. Kind regards, Carl. Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had read Roys comment to be that there they where not used in software in the related domain. I may have read more into the statement than I I think you misunderstood Roy's comment. Let me re-paste his comment as I think you are confusing what he originally said: In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered for web software. It is not an acceptable name for a podling. So, once again, according to his research, the name Blaze *is* already used in software already. -- justin - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 13:25, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Adding Apache to the name does not change anything, for the same reason that we cannot release Apache Windows. How about using MacroHard Doors ;o) Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Roy, This would be consistent at least not within the software category with the proposed name also, so what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the status-quo in Apache. Regards Carl. Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to gezoo, No they aren't, at least not within the software category. Roy - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be consistent at least not within the software category with the proposed name also, so what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the status-quo in Apache. Roy explicitly pointed out that Blaze was a registered trademark within the web software category. So, I don't see how that's consistent with our policies at all. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Carl Trieloff wrote: Roy, This would be consistent at least not within the software category with the proposed name also, so what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the status-quo in Apache. Carl, it's the software category of patents, not this software category. The PTO doesn't distinguish the same way you are trying to. Your name can clash with something trademarked in the automobile category, the pharmaceutical category etc. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Please could you post the links to the ones that concern you. I had read Roys comment to be that there they where not used in software in the related domain. I may have read more into the statement than I should have - if I did - sorry. If the measure is use in software then the following statement is incorrect at least not within the software category for Apache names without the Apache Note that other Apache projects also have trademarks in the software space, here are a few examples from two random Apache projects Here are some examples for Derby. www.geocities.com/~pack215/pwd-*software*.html www.*derby**software*.com/ www.rahul.net/mcgrew/*derby*/resource.html www.shopireland.ie/*software*/detail/184348191X/A-Z-Nottingham--*Derby*-/ www.tracking*derby*.com/tdadownload.php and so Here are some examples for Synapse www.*synapse**software*.com www.*synapse*.co.in/homepage/*trademarks*.shtml My understanding is the uniqueness of the full name and the lack of use of the name in the same domain are the key. If needed I can take this thread to Apache legal for comment. Any help is appreciated, regards Carl Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be consistent at least not within the software category with the proposed name also, so what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the status-quo in Apache. Roy explicitly pointed out that Blaze was a registered trademark within the web software category. So, I don't see how that's consistent with our policies at all. -- justin
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Thanks, see the other mail I just posted. Carl. William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Carl Trieloff wrote: Roy, This would be consistent at least not within the software category with the proposed name also, so what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the status-quo in Apache. Carl, it's the software category of patents, not this software category. The PTO doesn't distinguish the same way you are trying to. Your name can clash with something trademarked in the automobile category, the pharmaceutical category etc. - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Carl Trieloff wrote: ... Here are some examples for Derby. Derby is a relational database implemented entirely in java, which entered the Apache Incubator in August 2004. With those points in mind 1) This looks like Cub Scout race management software and the most recent date on the web site is 1998: www.geocities.com/~pack215/pwd-*software*.html 2) The entry below is game software. The dates on the downloads at http://www.derbysoftware.com/index.php?name=Downloadsreq=viewdownloadcid=1 are 16-Apr-2006, but I don't find any clue on the website as to when the company was formed: www.*derby**software*.com/ 3) It looks like this is car racing and is ultimately a U.S. Scouting Service project (http://usscouts.org/pinewood/cspdref.html), with a most recent date on the web site of 1999: www.rahul.net/mcgrew/*derby*/resource.html 4) It looks like this download is a regional map covering Nottingham and Derby, and it has a release date of 10th December, 2004: www.shopireland.ie/*software*/detail/184348191X/A-Z-Nottingham--*Derby*-/ 5) The only date I can find for this Derby skydiving site is 2005: www.tracking*derby*.com/tdadownload.php Of these 5 hits, the Cub Scout car racing (#1 and #3) are the ones that pre-date Apache Derby and are the most likely to be questioned. I don't know if they came up in the original search in the summer of 2004, but I doubt that either would be confused with a relational database. -jean - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not trying to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache deals with this. Maybe we should use Synapse as the comp project to understand as it is quite a recent project, and this link http://www.synapse.co.in/homepage/trademarks.shtml. How was the decision made around Synapse? Carl. Jean T. Anderson wrote: Carl Trieloff wrote: ... Here are some examples for Derby. Derby is a relational database implemented entirely in java, which entered the Apache Incubator in August 2004. With those points in mind 1) This looks like Cub Scout race management software and the most recent date on the web site is 1998: www.geocities.com/~pack215/pwd-*software*.html 2) The entry below is game software. The dates on the downloads at http://www.derbysoftware.com/index.php?name=Downloadsreq=viewdownloadcid=1 are 16-Apr-2006, but I don't find any clue on the website as to when the company was formed: www.*derby**software*.com/ 3) It looks like this is car racing and is ultimately a U.S. Scouting Service project (http://usscouts.org/pinewood/cspdref.html), with a most recent date on the web site of 1999: www.rahul.net/mcgrew/*derby*/resource.html 4) It looks like this download is a regional map covering Nottingham and Derby, and it has a release date of 10th December, 2004: www.shopireland.ie/*software*/detail/184348191X/A-Z-Nottingham--*Derby*-/ 5) The only date I can find for this Derby skydiving site is 2005: www.tracking*derby*.com/tdadownload.php Of these 5 hits, the Cub Scout car racing (#1 and #3) are the ones that pre-date Apache Derby and are the most likely to be questioned. I don't know if they came up in the original search in the summer of 2004, but I doubt that either would be confused with a relational database. -jean - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
I am missing something...Is there a product that they sell named Synapse? I can't find it. -- dims On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not trying to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache deals with this. Maybe we should use Synapse as the comp project to understand as it is quite a recent project, and this link http://www.synapse.co.in/homepage/trademarks.shtml. How was the decision made around Synapse? Carl. Jean T. Anderson wrote: Carl Trieloff wrote: ... Here are some examples for Derby. Derby is a relational database implemented entirely in java, which entered the Apache Incubator in August 2004. With those points in mind 1) This looks like Cub Scout race management software and the most recent date on the web site is 1998: www.geocities.com/~pack215/pwd-*software*.html 2) The entry below is game software. The dates on the downloads at http://www.derbysoftware.com/index.php?name=Downloadsreq=viewdownloadcid=1 are 16-Apr-2006, but I don't find any clue on the website as to when the company was formed: www.*derby**software*.com/ 3) It looks like this is car racing and is ultimately a U.S. Scouting Service project (http://usscouts.org/pinewood/cspdref.html), with a most recent date on the web site of 1999: www.rahul.net/mcgrew/*derby*/resource.html 4) It looks like this download is a regional map covering Nottingham and Derby, and it has a release date of 10th December, 2004: www.shopireland.ie/*software*/detail/184348191X/A-Z-Nottingham--*Derby*-/ 5) The only date I can find for this Derby skydiving site is 2005: www.tracking*derby*.com/tdadownload.php Of these 5 hits, the Cub Scout car racing (#1 and #3) are the ones that pre-date Apache Derby and are the most likely to be questioned. I don't know if they came up in the original search in the summer of 2004, but I doubt that either would be confused with a relational database. -jean - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Hi Carl, On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not trying to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache deals with this. The way Apache deals with this is that you get advice from lots of people who have been through a lot of the issues you're going through, and some of the advice is spot on and some is less valuable, and it's up to the project to decide what to do. Once it decides, if the decision is contentious, there is a vote, and many of the people who gave you advice get to vote. What I've seen here is several comments that in summary say It looks to me like Blaze is a problematic name for a Web project. It's now up to you (the project) to decide whether to ignore that advice and push through the name, or take the advice and come up with a different name. If you ignore the advice, you will probably need to write up why you think the other Blaze trademark holders in the world will ignore the Apache project. And you might ask for a formal review and legal opinion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] But since many of the people who have complained are actually in a voting position to block the proposal, and people hate to waste time on escalation of issues, I'd advise you to carefully consider whether you want to try to continue with the problematic name. Craig Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Quick question on trademarks. If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to gezoo, however if you search Apache XXX it cleans up. Once/one day when the project graduates from Incubator it will also be Apache XXX which is unique. How is this different from any of the other names in Apache that are highly trademarked without the Apache qualifier? Comments please - what is the policy? Carl. Cliff Schmidt wrote: On 7/20/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project can cause a previously closed standard to be forced into the open or be supplanted. +1 In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered for web software. It is not an acceptable name for a podling. Good point -- thanks, Roy! Cliff - 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]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/21/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question on trademarks. If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to gezoo, however if you search Apache XXX it cleans up. Once/one day when the project graduates from Incubator it will also be Apache XXX which is unique. How is this different from any of the other names in Apache that are highly trademarked without the Apache qualifier? Comments please - what is the policy? i'm not sure that there's enough consensus or definition for a policy. but there are plenty of strong opinions on project naming IMHO it's more than just about the law IMHO it's about politeness: the ASF is a little bit of a gorilla now. it would be impolite for apache to throw it's weight around by picking names too simiar to others in the software field. IMHO it's about branding: control of the brand allows apache to ensure that downstream users know whether their software is official. FUD is easier if xxx and apache xxx could be confused. of course, this argument only really applies when xxx is not a generic technical term. - robert
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote: If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to gezoo, No they aren't, at least not within the software category. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/20/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip If anyone has actually read this far, i have thanks for indulging my thoughts on this. and thanks for taking the time to draft such a comprehensive analysis of the space - robert
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project can cause a previously closed standard to be forced into the open or be supplanted. In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered for web software. It is not an acceptable name for a podling. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
On 7/20/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project can cause a previously closed standard to be forced into the open or be supplanted. +1 In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least one registered for web software. It is not an acceptable name for a podling. Good point -- thanks, Roy! Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
