corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only
Date Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:29:50 GMT

> On 21 Dec 2014, at 13:48, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> If we use digital signing then it for sure will be a branded product.  In
> general I am in favor for branded applications and non-branded libraries
> and source.

Having gone through the process of branding, trademarking and so on for more than one product
and project—the most famous however being OpenOffice.org but it was not the only—a couple
of issues leap to mind. I’ll be brief.

* Apache Corinthia: would Apache pay for branding and trademarking? I mean minimal. Not global,
complete, etc. Branding would be effectively cheap or free; trademarking less so. Previously,
with OpenOffice.org (note, I refer here to OpenOffice.org, not Apache OpenOffice), we had
pro-bono assistance. This was before Sun/Oracle kicked in; that only occurred in 2008 or so,
and previous to then we (mostly I) did it ourselves.

* Pursuing fakers. I’ve done a lot of this. It is not difficult. It does take time. It also
helps if there is a large entity, or at least one with legal power, standing behind one: Apache,
yes?

* I rather agree with Jan but would also point out that we just need to be clear what is meant
by “brand” here. Ie, how it differs from the de rigeur license claim attached to each
file (or equivalent).
Mime
View raw message