incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
Date Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:07:25 GMT
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 01:35, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> 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.
>
>
> -1 to the proposal as it stands with this name and 'Google retains the
> trademark "Google Wave"'

In general I agree with Niclas. This clause should be removed.

I seem to recall podlings where the donating company was required to
transfer trademarks, but don't remember exactly which podling/project
it was.

I wouldn't stop the proposal, though. This can be identified as an
issue to be solved in Incubation - either by changing the name away
from 'Wave' or by transferring marks or even by determining that none
of both is required.

  Bernd

PS: It would've been much better to first [DISCUSS] the proposal
before putting it up for vote.

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


Mime
View raw message