Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > I don't know that the name is an issue at all, if Sun is willing to
transfer
> > the trademark to the ASF, as was done with SpamAssassin. The impression
> > that I have from Craig and others is that this is do-able. According to
> > Simon, this is something that a Sun contact can work on, and according
to
> > Jim Hurley, "We would prefer to contribute it, but I'd like some
discussion
> > on this list on whether that's a viable option." The answer, Jim, is
yes.
> > We did the same with the SpamAssassin trademark.
> Because there is a difference. JINI is a "technology domain".
> SpamAssassin is a project.
If Sun is going to do the trademark assignment, there is no difference. We
would have the trademark for the technology domain. And if you take into
consideration the concurrent talk about specifications coming under ASF
practices, that would dovetail nicely.
> > Between that and Craig's observations regarding the JDO precedent, it
begs
> > the question of why we should not go forward with the JINI name, which
is
> > what Sun, itself, is offering, and which is the name with which people
> > associate. If we eventually find that we must change the name, which it
> > seems we would all like to avoid, we can do so later.
> I'd rather go forward with a neutral project name, and then work out the
> implications of managing a trademark that we'd have to allow others to
use.
Given Apache JDO, which is also a technology domain, how do you justify that
view? Please note: asking for justification is a debating question, not an
attack. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
