couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Couchbase trademark issues
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:58:41 GMT
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 19:06, Bob Dionne <dionne@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
> Randall and Noah,
>
> 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.

Thanks for pointing this out. I took a good look back through that
blog post. I also found, after some searching, this page:
http://www.couchbase.com/couchbase-single-server. I guess we'll see
whether Couchbase Server 2.0 incorporates any CouchDB code, but it
seems that no current product offering has any real relationship to
CouchDB and it's this that I perceived as misrepresentation and which
caused renewed concern from me. Premature worry, perhaps. I, for one,
hope they deliver a Mobile SyncPoint with CouchDB sync.

> I don't care to hear from Couchbase marketing. It's inappropriate to publicly state one's
intentions to seek legal advice on infringement matters, especially while in the same thread
demanding that the other party respond. It's deliberately inflammatory, and foolish. More
importantly it will not further anyone's interests, including those of this project.

I stand by my position that there is no better venue for a community
project to discuss these matters. If I'm inflammatory then it's not on
purpose.

My call for marketing input was to get both parties to help one
another. That's why I want to know how to contact them. It is not
related to my own interest in knowing how the issue of trademark
appears to ASF legal. I should have more cleanly separated my
requests.

** In no way was my request to hear from the Couchbase marketing team
meant to state or imply a threat of legal action, but merely a request
for participation in more clearly distinguishing our offerings. **

>
> I apologize if I sound harsh. No offense intended.

None taken, of course. It's really hard to discuss these matters and
even harder to do so over the Internet. Not to mention the quantity of
personal relationships involved.
I still believe it's imprudent *not* to seek advice from legal even if
it's for nothing more than our own edification.

-Randall

Mime
View raw message