incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
Date Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:05:23 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Tad Glines <>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman <> wrote:
> >  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.
> >
> The  word "Wave" is far more generic than "TrafficServer", "Lucene"  or
> "Hadoop".
> When I did a search through the trademark database I found 62  trademarks on
> the word "wave". There are others that contain the word wave  one of which is
> Google's "Google Wave" trademark. While I am neither a lawyer  nor a
> trademark expert, it seems logical to conclude that given the many  "Wave"
> trademarks and the fact that Google was granted a "Google Wave"  trademark
> that Apache would have no problem obtaining a trademark on "Apache  Wave" if
> they wished to.
> I think it's also fairly safe to conclude  that Google is never going to
> assign a trademark with the word "Google" in it  to another entity.
> If Google had a trademark on the plain word "Wave" in  the
> communication/collaboration space, then I would expect that to be a  problem.
> But, since they don't, I don't think this is an  issue.
> Perhaps Google could issue some sort of official "We promise not  to sue
> Apache Foundation over the use of the name 'Apache Wave'" just to  make
> everyone happy.

Welcome to the Incubator.  Yes trademarks are taken seriously, and yes
you've made some good points that the situation with "Wave" is relatively
unique.  While these sorts of discussions can be frustrating and annoying
at times, everyone here at Apache is basically just trying to be fair to
both all ASF projects and past incubation efforts, and somewhat consistent in
what we tell others about Incubation.  Different people have different 
perspectives and they are able to openly disagree without disrupting progress.
Happens all the time here.

FWIW I can easily foresee the Incubator accepting this proposal as written
and kicking around the trademark issue for a while longer post acceptance.
This is just how we work.  Personally I'd be fine with an Apache Wave project
graduating from the incubator, even without asking Google to abandon its 
interest in the Google Wave trademark (just as we haven't asked NCSU to
abandon its interest in VCL).  We just want to avoid any potential confusion
about the marks and the software they refer to.

If we need a legal opinion from the org about the propriety of that solution
I'd be happy to go fetch one, but for now let's please just move on to any
other remaining issues with the proposal.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message