commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...
Date Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:46:44 GMT
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> 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 don't care about the difficulty. I do think we want the software
world to use the word, similar to Incubator, Labs, "Software
Foundation" and Attic; and restricting it is not in our interest.
Whether that means claim-and-broadly-license or not-claim, I would
leave to trademarks@/legal counsel.

I realize that I earlier said 'claiming Commons bad' as well; I was
jumping to a solution instead of letting Shane et al deal with our
requirement which is de-facto standard.

>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>> - Apache Commons
>> - Apache Commons Foo
>> - Commons Foo
> Why, exactly?

The foundation's trademark direction has been to claim everything it can.

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

Seems to me that it's claimable. We are currently using the phrase, as
a compound mark it isn't a common word (imo) even if it is made up of
two common words and it's in accordance with foundation strategy.


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

View raw message