Ooops, trying again:
Shane Curcuru wrote (in an earlier email that didn't get delivered):
In general, projects at Apache Extras are just like any third party
product, and should not use Apache marks in their product name. The
only blanket exception is to use a Powered By or other similarly
distinct form of a name as noted here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#poweredby
The issue from the trademark perspective is that Apache Extras projects
are run by third parties, and are explicitly not run by our PMCs. To
ensure Apache trademarks remain associated with the actual Apache
projects, we need to ensure that third parties respect those marks.
That said, this is a good area for discussion, because we do want to be
as flexible as possible with third parties who do respect our marks, who
are building software that enhances our products.
I'm wondering if we can come up with a basic process by where PMCs can
approve specific Apache Extras projects in a way that 1) allows obvious
names like this to be OK, and 2) ensures Apache marks aren't diluted in
other areas, especially outside of Apache Extras.
Although we try to make explicitly clear the separation between Apache
Extras projects and Apache projects, it feels like there will be plenty
of times where existing committers and PMC members will be using Apache
Extras to host exactly this kind of thing - non-AL code that is an
obvious add-on to an existing Apache project. Given the fact that in
this case, we already know the people running the project, and the fact
that we exercise some control over the apache-extras.org domain and
hosting itself, I'd feel comfortable in having a much more liberal
"licensing" policy for projects at Apache Extras.
- Shane, looking for feedback and people to actively help organize this
Ross Gardler wrote:
That part of the FAQ is under the control of the trademarks committee.
So I'm copying to that list.
As a reminder, our policy is not to police apache-extras.org unless
there is a complaint from an Apache Project.
Ross
On 06/04/2011 07:48, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
L.S.,
In the FAQ at apache-extras.org (
http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html ) it says
"Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache or an
existing Apache project name in your Apache Extras project name, and
2) not using org.apache as the prefix for your bundle or package name.
"
While creating a project called servicemix-extra, this was seemingly
in violation with part 1) because we do in include ServiceMix in the
Apache Extras project name. Since there are already a lot of projects
out there that have the same naming convention, I suspect the FAQ
entry should read something like...
"Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache in your
Apache Extras project name, 2) not using an existing Apache project
name as your Apache Extras project name, and 3) not using org.apache
as the prefix for your bundle or package name. "
Is this the correct interpretation of the given FAQ entry? If so,
shouldn't we update the entry to avoid confusing simple souls like
myself?
Regards,
Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
