incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: [RESULT][IP Clearance] Flex Documentation for Apache Flex
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2015 04:18:59 GMT

On 4/22/15, 3:47 PM, "Justin Mclean" <> wrote:

>>  "Adobe Legal says we can fix trademark attributions after committing”
>By fix did they mean remove them all or add missing trademarks? What
>exactly was the advice they gave?

Like I said upthread "If I missed listing a trademark, I’ll add it in
the first commit after this donation lands in the repo, but where the
trademark names are just used in an example to show people how to put a
list of things in a UI widget, I’ll just replace those names with
something not trademarked.”

I really feel like there is some disconnect here.  What scenario are you
concerned about?  Can someone else help explain to me what I’m missing?

>Given the discussion took place off list and the Flex PMC was not
>involved in this donation I have no way of knowing what their advice was.
>The general rule of thumb is If it did't happen on list it did’t happen.
>Feel free to forward me their email, or even better forward  to the
>Incubator or Flex private lists, to provide clarity. That way it is also
>documented so that if an potential issues does come we can point to that.

This doesn’t feel right to me.  Can someone who’s been around Apache a
while answer if it is common for people to be asked to bring internal
company emails to Apache lists in order to convince folks that my
understanding of what to do meets their satisfaction?

>Removing them may be the safer course of action and would take little
>time, and that's exactly what Flex has done with previous donations.
>> I guess I don’t understand why I need to go challenge the advice of the
>> Adobe legal staff.
>I'm not asking you to challenge it. I'm asking that you make sure we have
>permission to use those trademarks in the donation or consider removing
>them. There would a reason Adobe decided not to use the standard
>disclaimer and that’s my concern, and their wording seems to suggest that
>we don’t have permission to use them.

To me, the first sentence gives us permission to use on the page.  The
second sentence says that you can’t use it any other way.


View raw message