On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote: > On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> 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: <snip/> >>>>> 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. > > Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable from 0 > as a double?
For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0. > Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time > convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making > changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk. Especially when > these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential > volunteers. I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
