corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only
Date Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:42:39 GMT
On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Louis Suárez-Potts <> wrote:

> > On 21 Dec 2014, at 13:48, jan i < <javascript:;>> 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
> 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 (note, I refer
> here to, 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.

asf pays for branding when we become TLP or shortly before not at this

I dont know exact what kind if branding asf does, but basically the sane as
for AOO.

> * 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?

YES asf legal uses quite a lot of the probono work on this.

> * 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).

I see what you mean, but I am not sure I could describe the corinthia brand
right now, maybe when we are more mature.

jan i

Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

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