@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: 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)?

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

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

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