Mailing-List: contact marketing-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: marketing@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CEB3C0F7.1F6ED%mathias.mullins@citrix.com>
References: <CEB3C0F7.1F6ED%mathias.mullins@citrix.com>
From: David Nalley <david@gnsa.us>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 05:53:59 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAKprHVYbW+vfc0eVOnBEOab8Rp02-inCFzDY9vXGbo-db7T6qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Enforcement of the trademark
To: "marketing@cloudstack.apache.org" <marketing@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Speaking with no hats on at the moment. I think that this is likely
okay. They are noting that it's '$somesoftware FOR CloudStack - there
doesn't seem to be any indication that they distribute CloudStack.
We'd probably prefer they refer to CloudStack as Apache CloudStack at
least once, and perhaps have a link or TM acknowledgement, but I don't
think they are blatantly infringing our marks.

--David

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Mathias Mullins
<mathias.mullins@citrix.com> wrote:
> Ok so before we involve trademarks here, maybe someone can tell me about =
if we enforce the trademark usage for Apache CloudStack when people are bui=
lding something that works with =93CloudStack=94?
>
> Example in point, "WHMCS module for CloudStack=94 is out there and refere=
nces is several times, but never references Apache at all. So is that impor=
tant?
>
> http://www.getcloudservices.com/hosting-providers/cloudstack-whmcs-module=
.html
>
> Matt