On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> -1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious >>>>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! >>>>>> A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask >>>>>> the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this >>>>>> together. OK. >>>>> >>>>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over >>>>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it >>>>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, >>>>> right? >>>> >>>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You >>>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided >>>> convincing rationale to the community... >>> >>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >>> and did not act quickly. >> >> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially >> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with >> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you >> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't >> revert other's commits in the future... >> > > Obviously I believed that time was critical here. You may disagree. > That's fine. But I hope you would agree that there are some things > where time is critical, and that those with knowledge in the area, > rather than bystanders, are the ones to make that call. >
Just to be explicit here, since the impact of this choice seems to have escaped several on this list, I have serious concerns about claiming a registered trademark invalidly. With patents, for example, it is illegal to claim a patent on something unless you actually have one [1]. The US government shares part of the fines with those who detect and report these kinds of things. So there are lawyers who go around trying to find such things, even if they are innocent mistakes, and report them, as their business model [2]. This is true even if done innocently and temporarily, e.g., remaining stock of a product that claims a patent after the patent has expired. I want to be absolutely sure that we don't call into a similar situation with trademark clams. I don't know if I am right or wrong here. But I did my research and I think I'm right. So I'm putting the legal protection of the ASF ahead of concerns about egos. Regards, -Rob [1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-29 [2] http://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2011/06/patent-false-marking-claims-pr.html > -Rob > >> --tim
