incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Peterson <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
Date Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:49:15 GMT
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Ralph Goers <>wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Tad Glines <>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
> >>
> >> 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.
> I completely agree with everything you said. Furthermore, I am quite
> satisfied based on the responses I got to my questions that Google has
> already given us permission to use Apache Wave.
> The real question is whether the ASF is comfortable in having a project
> with that name.  For example, since Google is retaining the rights to Google
> Wave they could at any time ship a version of Apache Wave under that name -
> which, I believe, is something not currently allowed for any other ASF
> project. OTOH, Wave in a Box (or WIAB) sounds like it is probably quite
> unique.  Personally, I am torn between being consistent and the fact that a
> project named Apache Wave is going to have instant market appeal.
> But a decision on what the formal project name will be should not preclude
> entrance to the incubator. However, the project participants should be aware
> that there is likely to be more discussion on the issue.

Thanks for the summary, Ralph. I also agree with Tad's points. I think the
most important thing is that any organization should be free to use Apache
Wave, assuming it complies with the Apache open source license. However,
most importantly: I'm glad to hear explicit resolution here isn't a blocking
issue for entry to the incubator.

Overall, since putting this proposal up for discussion last week, we've
received: substantive feedback, gained 2 new mentors, heard from potential
new contributors, and seen both binding and non-binding votes of support.

To keep things moving, I'd like to go ahead and put this proposal to a vote
starting on Tuesday on the west coast of the US (roughly 24 hours from now).


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