Noel J. Bergman wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I think it's a big difference. We aren't ready to handle either yet, so I think that the proposed Jini project would be subject to lots of uncertainty, which isn't fair (been there, done that...) I guess we could call the project "Apache Jini", but that sounds like an umbrella in the making, and I don't think we'd allow a Apache AJAX, Apcahe Web2.0, Apache Java, Apache SQL, Apache Blog, Apache OS, etc project... > >>> 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. :-) You have to work far harder than that to attack me :) It's an implementation of a spec. A single spec that is part of an external spec-governing ecosystem, the JCP. "Jini" isn't a spec, it's it's own spec ecosystem. It's not part of the JCP, for example. So Apache Jini is like saying Apache JCP (I'm stretching to make a point...). geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
