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 07:53:38 GMT
On 23/04/2015 08:43, Pierre Smits wrote:
> @1: We (the ASF) do own foo.org <http://foo.org/> (I assume that is what
> you meant). I did a little whois check. We're talking about ofbiz.org
> <http://ofbiz.org/> (or org.ofbiz) See: http://www.whois.com/whois/ofbiz.org
> 
> @2: These are remnants from the pre-ASF era, I suspect as I wasn't
> around that period or participating in the transition phase to have the
> poddling become a TLP.
> 
> Quoting: From a brand perspective, org.apache.foo is very strongly
> preferred.
> I can imagine that, but even 'very strongly preferred' doesn't make it a
> requirement, as it implies that not having it so is something that can
> be lived with. Having it as a branding requirement has far greater
> implications. I have emailed a question regarding this subject to the
> office of ASF brand management.
> 
> But what is then - given the above - the answer to my question(s)?

Legally, no problems.

Mark


> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com <http://www.orrtiz.com/>
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org
> <mailto:markt@apache.org>> wrote:
> 
>     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