commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...
Date Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:46:41 GMT
On 14 March 2011 03:21, 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.

I think it would be possible; the skin does already allow for property
input from component POMs already.
The components which need to protect their bare names could define a
special property.

But it's also possible to override the entire footer in a component.
The only disadvantage to doing that is if the rest of the footer ever
has to be changed, we would have to update all components that had
customised the footer.
But there are probably not many of those, and it's not difficult to do.

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

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


Mime
View raw message