www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <hyand...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Dead project names
Date Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:16:29 GMT
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Henri Yandell <hyandell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why are we unable to restart the project under the same name if we're
>>>> allowing multiple others to do so?
>>> Doing so would introduce confusion.  Once we relinquish use of the
>>> name beyond what we minimally need in order to continue to distribute
>>> old versions, the name is not ours.  Once it is in active use
>>> elsewhere, we can't simply take it back.
>> But you're okay with the notion that there could be more than one fork
>> using the project?
> All with unique names?  Certainly.
> Are you asking what happens after we give up rights to a given name?
> I'd prefer that we start things off in a way that minimizes the chance
> of that happening, but the way I see it once we transfer rights it
> ceases to be our concern.
>> My general desire is to, using HiveMind as an example, allow others to
>> make their own HiveMind provided they call it <Something> HiveMind;
>> while we would retain "Apache HiveMind". If we want to restart the
>> project, or if we want to bring one of the external projects back in
>> through the Incubator, we would call it "Apache HiveMind".
> Once upon a time Apache Jakarta was Apache Java.  The name was changed
> in order to prevent confusion.
> IANAL, but trying a few combinations: Apache WebSphere, Apache BigMac,
> Apache Kindle...?  Nah, doesn't pass the "common sense" test here.
> Particularly if the product in question has more than a superficial
> similarity to the other product in question.  And in this case, you
> are suggesting code with a common ancestor.
> Perhaps it is time for others to chime in here, but if we are faced
> with a situation where interest has ceased at the ASF and there is a
> credible intent to pursue continued development elsewhere then we
> should approach this with the mindset of a transfer of trademark in
> exchange for the minimal and limited rights to continue to distribute
> archived versions and without the expectation that we would ever use
> that name again.

My general concerns are:

* Not wanting to close the door on ourselves.
* Not wanting a landrush on projects entering the Attic - the second
one shows up it means the trademark is up for grabs for the first
person who can spin the right story to get to be the only owner.
* My common sense test is "Ubuntu Linux", "Red Hat Linux"; but you
know of my personal views on open source + trademarks right now :)
Proprietary products aren't valid data for the test.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message