commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...
Date Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:03:08 GMT
On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>>>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>>>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark.  Otherwise, we
>>>> need to be prepared to defend all of these "trademarks" which makes
>>>> no sense to me personally.
>>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>>> anyway).
>>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
>> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
>> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
>> Board could require us to change.
>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
> - Apache Commons
> - Apache Commons Foo
> - Commons Foo
Why, exactly?

And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?"

> Mark
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message