On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote: > 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?
Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way of stopping abuse. > And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?" Because there no reason that we can't. Whilst those individual words would be hard to trademark, "Commons Email" and "Apache Commons Email" should not present a problem. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
