www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Legal implications of how artefacts are named?
Date Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:43:03 GMT
@1: We (the ASF) do own foo.org (I assume that is what you meant). I did a
little whois check. We're talking about ofbiz.org (or org.ofbiz) See:

@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
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)?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Mark Thomas <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

View raw message