Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cutting@gmail.com designates
 209.85.200.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=dxyntV2h/Iod7I934MR2TFdwm9orl/QcUxNWsLta0NmcdCkeg++XBGxX5ElIHVmskk
         c32vXkRhhjWfF8wlENe8CrA3JLsK3HtV1JeRqfxuE86MowsBINSOZ/bVtIm6ZdmOiS9H
         39LDd1cs3xy2yzweyLWulKu4z7QsD6RosDp9o=
Sender: Doug Cutting <cutting@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49ADA3F3.9020307@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:41:07 -0800
From: Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Dead project names
References: <2d12b2f00902270215l4b30ec8bvb448e47d12ca38d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3d4032300902270723k17c5eafdj5a853b902407500@mail.gmail.com>
	 <55038EC8-D623-44C2-BFCD-8F964EE7AB1A@jaguNET.com>
	 <2d12b2f00902270757u32f7f19dvee6c7ab879a588cc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3d4032300902270832r565f3851y7af425689b00d31e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2d12b2f00902271917l7910d50evc20b09c735cb9e56@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3d4032300902271955v33ab4cd5v8ed6943f970ab2f0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2d12b2f00902272116o285fec0bx91a2fe72cdb2a613@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49AD6400.4050002@apache.org>
 <5c902b9e0903030956x3ed898daw5c2acb2cce2041d9@mail.gmail.com>
 <49AD766B.80208@apache.org> <49AD98B4.9050801@rowe-clan.net>
In-Reply-To: <49AD98B4.9050801@rowe-clan.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Again, most of this is asked and answered, and it's all under the PRC
> umbrella.

But where are these answers documented?  Do I have to subscribe to prc@ 
to know the policy?  I really don't want to join another list and engage 
in more long, contentious, inconclusive discussions.

The only stated policy I can find is:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#Marks

That's considerably less guidance than Linux and Ubuntu provide.  We 
should make this easy for folks, no?  Most folks, myself included, are 
hesitant to join a mailing list and ask questions likely to generate 
lengthy, confusing discussions, as most questions on Apache lists do.

In a quick search turns up  the following probable Lucene trademark 
violations:

http://www.dotlucene.net/
http://www.lucene-consulting.com/
http://www.getopt.org/luke/
http://dev.lucene-ws.net/wiki/API
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Lucene-search
http://drupal.org/project/luceneapi
http://lucenedotnet.com/
http://ll01.nla.gov.au/
http://www.opensymphony.com/compass/content/lucene.html
http://www.lucenebootcamp.com/
http://search.cpan.org/dist/WebService-Lucene/
http://blog.lucene.com/

So the current policy is not well observed.  If we had a reasonable 
posted policy, we might find fewer such violations.  We might also have 
something we could send these folks that they might reasonably act on 
without further discussion, which would simplify compliance.

In any case, it does not look like this trademark has been well defended 
and may thus no longer even be defensible.  Do we really have the 
resources to defend 50+ trademarks?  We're not Proctor and Gamble.

I don't have the will to do much more than complain here, passing on the 
complaints I've heard from others leery of complaining in public.  I do 
not intend to join prc@ and work to fix this.  So I'm just providing a 
drive-by opinion that the current process is broken.  Sorry!

Doug

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