Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=gz7bKlyrNTgqk2OO0afv9eyAa//UyypFXqYk/eHgRm5lWDzm/R0rXsznTeoe2NnwvHh+UWFE/kjyUiCg9zdhBwac9synTapdHJfGJwftp+3m/NmyZDWgDHOv75XCXSWoxEdUjTXoO0356R27ZzCfy2gwW1jrfBV06BIhrEvr+Bg=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <4607F9C8.4080506@rowe-clan.net>
References: <200703252248.25663.niclas@hedhman.org>
 <E18B9854-E5BE-4250-9F16-E48094B313C9@pobox.com>
 <200703252317.21308.niclas@hedhman.org>
 <0B7B66AB-AA3D-4FE6-988D-ECB101F5C723@iq80.com>
 <4607F9C8.4080506@rowe-clan.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <BEF004C7-D992-4472-8BD6-DBAAF94FF752@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: JBoss trademark issue
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:10:41 -0400
To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>


On Mar 26, 2007, at 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> We tried to work with the community as an group independent of the  
>> JBoss
>> company, but it was very difficult to communicate without stepping on
>> the trademark.
>>
>> I think it would be very helpful to have an "OSI Approved" trademark
>> grant along with the "OSI Approved" license.  It would help set
>> expectations of open source communities on what is acceptable  
>> trademark
>> practice.
>
> That's the trick.  We don't license Marks.
>
> Most projects don't.  Refactor Tomcat, you may no longer call your  
> work
> Tomcat.  Refactor Java, you may no longer call the work Java.
>
> The source code is open, the naming of it is quite closed, here or  
> at some
> commercial entity.  SO ... that leaves us with the marks being held  
> by the
> agent you trust.  Is it owned by the Open Source Project, or by one of
> the project's Commercial Sponsors or interested parties?
>
> Suggesting that every fork can retain the same name would just add  
> chaos
> to what many perceive to be a chaotic situation already.  What we  
> do in
> incubator, validating the uniqueness of our chosen marks, clearly  
> establishing
> first use, the name restrictions in the ASL all go a long way to  
> prevent
> any future confusion.

that's not the issue wrt JBoss.  Several organizations (companies)  
who had major jboss developers tried to offer support for the  
unforked jboss product and were prevented from mentioning "jboss"   
while trying to do so on trademark infringement grounds.

An equivalent would be apache suing anyone who offered commercial  
tomcat support if they mentioned "apache" or "tomcat".

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org