commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...
Date Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:00:15 GMT
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 3/13/11 10:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >> On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> <snip/>
> >>>>>>> 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?
> >>>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
> >>>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no
> way
> >>>> of stopping abuse.
> >>> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable
> from 0 as a double?
> >> For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think
> >> the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0.
> >>
> >>> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time
> convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making
> changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when
> these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential
> volunteers.
> >> I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression.
> > The impression that we are a commercial entity, or that we are
> > representing the interests of other commercial entities.  Most
> > people see trademarks as only meaningful in commercial settings.  We
> > have a more sophisticated view @apache that views trademarks as
> > meaningful outside of commercial use, or more precisely as limiting
> > commercial use of the names.  My admittedly minority view is that
> > aggressively "claiming marks" does not help our public image.
> >
> > I will shut up about this now and we can proceed with the changes,
> > since this is consistent with ASF policy and we do not have
> > consensus to challenge that policy.
>
> It depends on component.
>
> We should always claim "Apache Commons XYZ". Seems weak in terms of
> energy given that we claim "Apache", but presumably there are good
> reasons why "Apache Commons XYZ" gives us more value/power/something
> than Apache on its own does.
>
> For a unique name, for example, Sanselan, we should state our claim of:
>
>  "Apache Commons Sanselan"
>  "Commons Sanselan"
>  "Sanselan"
>
> At least I'm assuming that trademarks@ will want to keep a name like
> 'Sanselan' as close to its chest as possible.
>
> For a non-unique name, for example, Math, we should state our claim of:
>
>  "Apache Commons Math".
>
> [where claiming 'Math' is ludicrous, and claiming 'Commons Math' is
> only a shade less ludicrous].
>
> This does assume that we're not claiming 'Commons'. If we claim
> 'Commons', then 'Commons Math' is a direct follow-on; but claiming
> 'Commons' is against our aims imo.
>
> On the technical side - we can't do this in a generic commons-build
> way imo. We have to split our names into 'hug close' and 'ludicrous'
> and do footers accordingly.
>

Should all the logos include "Apache"?

Gary

>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message