Again there is what the Apache lawyer wants and there is what we can do. They defend Apache's interest, not ours. Amd there is what they want, and what they can't do anything about. And then there is what they can do something about with huge risk to hurt Apache's reputation more than protecting its interest. It is not because Apache does not like us to do something that we can't. On Jan 3, 2014 11:22 AM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote:
> From previous conversations with the Apache lawyers (revolving my own user > group), I doubt they will let any domain names with the words "apache" and > "flex" fly. When they first took over the trademarks they were very > unsettled with the amount of community sites that used the word "flex" by > itself. > > It if were a site with the domain name of "theflexexamples.com" or > anything > without the word "apache" in it, I would see no problems with it at all. > Hell, I'd probably throw in the $35 to register such a domain and give it > to Stephane. My biggest concerns are : > > - Apache, by US law, has to defend its trademarks. I'd hate to see one of > our community members get a cease-and-desist, or just have their domain > taken away from them directly from the registrar (yes, it happens). > - As a member of the PMC, I'd personally worry about what content ends up > on that site over time and how the community overall would see it. I'm all > for a fan site, but one with a name tied so closely to our project I think > we would need to make sure that derogatory or incorrect content, or content > that we can't officially talk about doesn't end up there and be perceived > by the world as coming from us. For example a site like that publishing a > list of what they expect to be in the "next release" could be confusing for > people who are not directly connect to the project. > > All that being said, I'd love to see some of the content -- and I'd love > for our site to directly link to whatever it ends up being so we have more > fresh content and not links to examples built on Apache 4.1 and 4.2 on our > site :) > > -Nick > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > I would appreciate it if you would not waste resources of Apache by > > testing them on this topic. There are a set of lawyers who volunteer > time > > to Apache to guide them on legal issues. Let's wait until we get an > > official reply from trademarks. > > > > In the meantime, I'd like to hear from the other PMC members. If it is > ok > > with trademarks, is it ok with us that Joe should be able to use > > apacheflexexamples.com? I stated my concerns earlier in this thread. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 1/2/14 8:10 PM, "Stephane Beladaci" <adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >You mean in case Trademark refuse to allow its use and outside lawyers > > >confirm it is not fair use righr? Because Trademark, whoever that is is > > >not > > >god and I start to really dislike this conversation. Let me build one > > >then, and tell you when its on production and if you don't like it tell > > >trademark to sue me. There is no such thing as bad publicly for > > >individuals > > >in those cases. Which is why Apache would not sue, wanna bet? > > > On Jan 2, 2014 7:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> > And here I was thinking that suggestions would come in the form of > > >>what > > >> people > > >> > would like to see on the actual site, not whether the site could > > >> actually exist. > > >> I don't think anyone thinks the site shouldn't exist, and there's > > >>several > > >> people that think it's a good idea and are willing to help out. > > >> > > >> > And part of that community was the old flexexamples.com website: it > > >>was > > >> not owned directly > > >> > by Adobe, it is owned by Peter Dehaan, who happened to work for > Adobe > > >> If he worked for Adobe as a full time person then they probably do own > > >>it. > > >> That may be an issue if you intend to reuse some of the examples on > your > > >> site (and if the content is ever donated to Apache), although I do > note > > >> they were CC licensed. > > >> > > >> > It is a "fan site", and will constitutes fair use in my opinion, end > > >>of > > >> story. > > >> I think your good intentions are clear and are certainly not the issue > > >> here. > > >> > > >> Just be aware that the ASF view is that: > > >> ... "and please realize that the use of ASF trademarks in your domain > > >> names is generally not "nominative fair use." "[1] > > >> > > >> > I'll release a private beta when the time comes, and all three of us > > >>-- > > >> > me, the apache suits and the flex team -- can revisit the whole > issue > > >>at > > >> that time. > > >> That sounds like a good approach, but I'd suggest you have a backup > > >>domain > > >> name just in case trademarks decide it can't be used. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Justin > > >> > > >> 1.http://apache.org/foundation/marks/#domains > > > > >
