On Mar 6, 2009, at 7:14 AM, Josh Thompson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri March 6 2009 9:37:03 am Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
So what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what the name,
either formal or common, AFS rules require a different name?

Correct, our project name has to be different.

This is the message I keep hearing (and by "hearing", I mean it is
how I am
interpreting what I read) that doesn't make any sense to me:

"There must be a name for the project at ASF that isn't used
anywhere else in
the world for any similar project, and anyone who downloads and
installs said
project isn't allowed to use the ASF name in any way."

That doesn't make sense to me because t's a normal business model to
produce
software that is to be sold and used by other people /without/
changing the
name of the software, in fact, it would generally be considered
wrong to
change the name.  An example similar to ours that I can think of is
Blackboard software used for online courses.  www.blackboard.com is
the site
for the company that develops it.  If you do a google search
for "allinurl:blackboard" you'll find many sites that have Blackboard
installed and actually use "blackboard" in the URL.

You are missing the point. I am not advocating changing the name just
for the sake of changing the name.  There is a conflict in naming
between NCSU VCL and this project.  It's that simple.

I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding what you're saying - I need you to restate it using different wording rather than just repeating yourself. I don't understand the naming conflict between ASF VCL and NCSU's install of VCL (keep in mind the content at vcl.ncsu.edu will be changed to refer to development of VCL being at ASF and stuff at vcl.ncsu.edu to just be an
install of it).

It's the name your department name, NCSU VCL, and the name of this incubating project, ASF VCL, that is the problem. They cannot be the same. It doesn't matter if the stuff at the NCSU VCL department is just an installation of the ASF VCL project. It doesn't matter if there's attribution at the NCSU VCL department that they have installed ASF VCL software.

There is a naming conflict and that has to be resolved.

It seems to me, the Blackboard example I gave above exactly
matches our situation. If it can work for them, why can it not work for VCL? If you don't think it matches our situation, please clearly state how and why
you don't think it matches.

It does not match our situation. In your example you have a *single* corporation. In our situation we have two separate institutions, one of them being a non-profit software foundation. The project at the ASF cannot share a name with it's progenitor, an external institution.

I mention branding because it's obvious that the NCSU staff is vociferously attempting to keep the branding connection between the NCSU department and the ASF incubator project by keeping the same name, regardless of what that name is.


Regards,
Alan

Matt and Kevan - Do you understand what Alan is saying? If so, as our other
two mentors, can you help to clarify it?

Josh

I will repeat myself again here.  NCSU VCL and its developers have a
lot to be proud of.  It's only natural that both, NCSU VCL and its
developers at ASF VCL, would want to keep their association with the
brand.  That brand is only strengthened as departments from other
universities join in and have their initiatives participate in the VCL
brand.  Unfortunately the ASF must remain independent this branding
effort.

We are not a business.  We are an independent, non-profit, software
foundation and we must remain free from such entanglements.


Regards,
Alan

Reply via email to