On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote: >>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e., >>>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we >>>> need to be prepared to defend all of these "trademarks" which makes >>>> no sense to me personally. >>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a >>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks. >>> >>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark >>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed >>> anyway). >>> >>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with >>> @Trademarks. >> OK. I just asked on board@. They may toss it over to trademarks, >> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the >> Board could require us to change. >> >> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions. I want to make >> sure I am not misrepresenting our views. > I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark. > > I think we should be claiming/protecting: > - Apache Commons > - Apache Commons Foo > - Commons Foo Why, exactly?
And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?" Phil > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
