couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: Couchbase trademark issues
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:11:43 GMT

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Bob Dionne <>wrote:
> I disagree. I don't think, given the way events have unfolded, that anyone
> has been disingenuous. The two blog posts from Cloudant and Couchbase,
> clarifying their commitments to the CouchDB project in the aftermath of
> Damien's departure, explain their positions nicely.

Cloudan't committment to CouchDB is not being questioned in this thread,
and it has been repeatedly clarified that Cloudant and IrisCouch use the
word "Couch" in responsible ways that bolster our community and our
product. I believe Randal was using the word disingenuous to refer to the
"Couch" word being used in Couchbase's competing  but incompatible
CouchDB-like product. Our brand's good will is being used to help market
this product, which would be fine if it was a complimentary product or
service, and didn't damage our project in the process.

I don't care to hear from Couchbase marketing.

I do care to hear from marketing, because I think Clouchbase have a
marketing problem, and I would love to initiate a dialog with them about
the best way forward to better delineate our two products.

> It's inappropriate to publicly state one's intentions to seek legal advice
> on infringement matters

Why? All we're doing is asking "hey, something's doesn't feel right here,
should we seek advice on this?" The law is there to protect us, and it's
perfectly reasonable to frame any discussions within that context. Would
you consider it inappropriate to discuss a licence violation that someone
had spotted in the wild?

It is in no way inappropriate to state one's intentions to seek legal
advice. It is a very regular occurrence within the open source world. Our
organisation is transparent, and aside from security issues
and administration tasks that need to be handled privately, everything is
done in the open. The ASF legal-discuss mailing list is public.


> especially while in the same thread demanding that the other party respond

I don't think that anyone has demanded anything. It is clear to me that
there are a few people, both on this thread and off, that wish for some
kind of response from Couchbase, or for us to instigate contact with them.

> It's deliberately inflammatory, and foolish.

This thread has been very civil. There's been no provocative (in the sense
of inflammatory) remarks, and no stirring up of passions. Couchbase is
posing a problem for our community. That's a simple fact, as is evidenced
by a number of first hand reports. Nobody has said "Couchbase is
intentionally harming our community" or "the people at Couchbase are
intentionally harming our community." In fact, quite the opposite. We've
been very clear all along that this isn't an attack on Couchbase. Nobody is
out to "get" Couchbase. We just want to work with them to sort out this
problem that I am sure they feel just as painfully as we do. I don't see
any problem with that.

> More importantly it will not further anyone's interests, including those
> of this project.

You don't think that sorting out the brand confusion will further this
project's interests?

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