incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:14:55 GMT
Danese Cooper wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:41:30 -0700:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf <>wrote:
> > Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> > > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> > > the project.
> >
> > You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
> > predates OOo being proposed as a podling.
> >
> > Now, we're generally reasonable people here, and the podling can always
> > request an exception (talk to trademarks@).  But, with my Member hat on,
> > this collective "Let's join Apache, but not be called Apache, and not
> > work with existing Apache entities" spirit leaves a rather bad taste.
> >
> Ah Daniel, many of these folks didn't "ask" to join Apache.  This is a
> situation that has been rare at Apache until now (modulo Apache Subversion).

In Subversion's case the people behind the project did want to move to
Apache.  (and we had long threads about this at the time on the private

>  Normally a project is obscure when it starts at Apache and the only job is
> to find a name nobody has used before. is a very valuable
> brand worldwide...possibly equal to Apache in value.  As a Member (and
> Mentor of this project) I think the right thing to do is to use the Apache
> prefix along with the (regrettable but established) .org suffix. I do think
> ASF should ask trademark law counsel whether doing so would be considered
> dilution of the brand, however.

Branding isn't the core issue I am concerned with.  Understanding the ASF is.

> Danese

View raw message