www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Legal implications of how artefacts are named?
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:51 GMT
On 23/04/2015 07:59, Pierre Smits wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Maybe this has already been addressed before. If so I apologise for
> reiterating the subject. Couldn't find anything pertaining the matter.
> See below.
> 
> Is there, from a legal perspective, a limitation on how artefacts (e.g.
> java packages) are named that are created/developed in our projects?
> 
> To be more specific: is it allowed to have an artefact, created by the
> Apache Foo project, named as 'org.foo.artefact'? Or is it required to
> have it named 'org.apache.foo.artefact'?

Two questions:

1. Do we (the ASF) own the org.foo domain (if yes, which one are we
talking about so it can be confirmed with infra)?

2. Why is org.foo preferred to org.apache.foo ? From a brand
perspective, org.apache.foo is very strongly preferred.

Mark


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


Mime
View raw message