incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Roughley <rough...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
Date Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:57:07 GMT
On 11/25/2010 07:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson from his
>> google.com address. I imagine that if Google had a problem with it,
>> then he wouldn't be working there tomorrow :-D ... or if this was some
>> kind of spurious one-guy-goes-batshit-crazy, then how could he line up
>> so many people?
>>
>> And sure, while you couldn't know this, Dan is a great guy. I worked
>> with him while at Google. This proposal is straight-up.
>>
>> My simple point is: please accept proposals at face value rather than
>> pushing back with paranoid thoughts about malfeasance on the part of
>> the people wanting to join our efforts here at the ASF.
> 
> Yet, we have in the past had similar situations, where we have not
> allowed this kind of position. In the end, you are now encouraging
> that Apache WAVE, Google WAVE and Niclas WAVE are totally fine,
> possibly not the same thing.
> LucidImagination is told that "LucidWorks for Lucene" is a proper
> 'association' back to the Apache project. Shouldn't they (in the same
> spirit) then be allowed "Lucid Lucene" as well?
> Didn't we require Yahoo TrafficServer to assign trademark, or we would
> change the name?
> Doug Cutting assign trademark to Lucene?
> 
> Although I agree with you, Greg, that if Google has a problem, this is
> likely not happening. My point is the reverse; If we allow "Google
> Wave", "Niclas Wave" and so forth, we need to allow this for the
> Lucenes, Hadoops and TrafficServers as well, otherwise 5 years down
> the line, you need to go researching each and every projects history
> to figure out how derived products may call themselves. I think it
> severely complicates Trademark policies and blurs our definitions.


So, I think there's an underlying issue here that hasn't been brought up yet.  And from the
many
discussion with Dan, I think it's Google's fault :-)

The problem is that "Google Wave" was marketed as both the technology (such as email) and
a product
(such as Exchange), causing identity issues.  Now, I think we have the same identity problem
with
the trademark discussion.

My concern with NOT including the word "wave" in the name, and instead using something like
"bob",
is that now we need to re-educate technologist of what "bob" is.  Having worked on Novell
Pulse/Vibe
for as long as Wave has been around, I know that it's much easier to explain our product as
being
like wave and using wave - even though it's not entirely correct terminology most of the time.


> 
> 
> -1 to the proposal as it stands with this name and 'Google retains the
> trademark "Google Wave"'
> 
> 
> Cheers


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message