On 10/04/2022 17:08, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On 10 Apr 2022, at 18:02, Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/04/2022 16:07, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
<snip/>
And finally - that we offer a non-exclusive license to the name (but without
the apache prefix), trademark and full provenance/code history; to any party
that wants to take over; provided they abide by the Apache license.
With my VP Brand hat on: -1
There are various reasons why a project enters the attic. Whether to allow the
name to be used is a decision that needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
It isn't a situation where a general rule can be applied.
Just to clarify/understand - you are also concerned about this from a brand
perspective if the apache prefix (e.g. Apache FooBar) is removed as per the
original proposal. So it is the ability to call it ‘FooBar’ ?
Yes.
You would also be against licensing that (so it is not a transfer) on a non
exclusive basis - perhaps with the insistence that they prefix it with
something like; like ‘CivicFoundation FooBar’ ?
Yes.
I am against any general rule that says "We will always do XXX with the
trademarks associated with a project that is moved to the attic.".
This doesn't happen anywhere near often enough to expend the effort
documenting a policy that covers a reasonable majority of the use cases.
To date, the less than a handful of instances where this has happened
have each been sufficiently different there is not sufficient data from
which to extract some typical cases that we can address with a policy.
I am happy to continue to look at requests on a case by case basis.
<snip/>
With the option; e.g. after 1 or 2 years; for that new community to petition
the board for the actual trademarks, domain names and what not.
Again: -1
We can't do this. At least not with out an awful lot of expensive legal hoop
jumping. Trademarks are an asset. As a US charity it is legally complex to
transfer one of our assets to another entity.
Right - but the expenses I am not too concerned about - they can be covered by
the receiving party - in the rare cases that we’d want such an exclusive
transfer as opposed to the non-exclusive just ‘license’ case above.
That depends on whether the receiving entity can afford the associated
costs. In the few instances where the project name has continued in some
form outside of the ASF, it is highly unlikely the associated entity
could have afforded the associated legal fees had a trademark transfer
been an option.
We have had situations like this in the past. My aim as VP Brand is always to
try and do whatever is in the best interest of the project community whether
that community wants its home to be at the ASF or outside it.
Right - but the issue is that we’ve lost the (nexus) of the community at the ASF -
and there is some group of people outside it that wants to continue & build a
new one — perhaps with different governance.
Yes, this has happened before and - where appropriate - we have figured
out a way for the name to continue to be used outside of the ASF.
As it is the latter that may likely be needed in the sort of cases where the
software has become too core to society - yet no longer of interest to
volunteer maintainers labouring under ASF governance.
That isn't an issue. Anyone can always fork an ASF project. Whether they
can use the name will depend on the circumstances and is something that
we will continue to look at on a case by case basis.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
