Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-Id: <200306052023.NAA21575@s5.servlets.net>
From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@koberg.com>
To: "'Lucene Developers List'" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Lucene
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:23:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <3EDFA1FC.4080401@lucene.com>
Thread-Index: AcMrnX/Fxs7N44G7RM6ri4jUaSuXFgAAJhzw

Hi,

Not trying to be confrontational (Lucene is a great product!), but where
does it say you are required to use the logo? I have read the license =
that
ships with Lucene and does not mention anything about it.=20

For my search, I use Lucene (recently added) just for XML content =
searching.
We offer static site hosting that bundles mnogoSearch, rather than using =
a
Java search. I use other methods for metadata search, and other methods =
to
order the search results independent of Lucene. I would not agree that =
my
search is totally 'powered by Lucene', rather 'aided by.' That said, I =
don't
mind putting the logo on the Lucene search result list. I doubt my =
customers
would have any idea what to with it...

Also, the logo looks a little on the poor side. I don't know if the =
lines
outlining Lucene are exactly how they are supposed to be, but the =
'flags'
off the 'L' are anti-aliased very poorly (what purpose do they serve?).
Perhaps rendering on a Mac with a different gif codec might help. I =
could
give it a shot if you want to send the PSD.

Best,
-Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Cutting [mailto:cutting@lucene.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:03 PM
> To: Mark Harwood
> Cc: Lucene Developers List
>=20
> >>I think you should stop insisting that the "powered by lucene" ad
> >>appears on search result pages in this manner:
> >>
> >>The management behind large-scale sites typically will not accept
> >>such advertisements on their pages. I don't agree with that but as a
> >>result the technical staff are typically forced to violate this code
> >>and using Lucene then becomes a guilty secret that the technical
> >>staff do not wish to share with the Lucene community. This means
> >>important sites do not appear on the "powered by lucene" list, which
> >>can only hurt the adoption of Lucene.
> >>If the requirement was changed to insist that sites were added to =
the
> >>"powered by" list I suspect we would see some more credible
> >>references appear. If these references included volumes of data and
> >>daily search volumes this would be of much greater help in "selling"
> >>Lucene.
>=20
> Mark, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing, that we just drop =
the
> requirement altogether?  That would remove any incentive for folks to
> ever add "Powered by Lucene", no?  Maybe that would be okay, since =
we'd
> get more commercial sites listed in Lucene's "powered by" page, which
> would be a net win for Lucene.  Is that what you're proposing?  I =
could
> live with that.  We could make the logo not a requirement for listing =
in
> our "powered by" page, but rather just a recommendation.  Or did you
> have something else in mind?
>=20
> Doug
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org