Here is the thing though -- it's not a "us vs. them" type of situation. We are all Apache (including the community). The trademark group within the Apache Foundation is there to protect us. Please see it that way. We live in a litigious world and we all need to realize that.
-Nick On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Stephane Beladaci < adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > >
