On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > >> From: Tad Glines <tad.gli...@gmail.com> > >> To: general@incubator.apache.org > >> Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM > >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation > >> > >> The word "Wave" is far more generic than "TrafficServer", "Lucene" or > >> "Hadoop". > >> When I did a search through the trademark database I found 62 > trademarks on > >> the word "wave". There are others that contain the word wave one of > which is > >> Google's "Google Wave" trademark. While I am neither a lawyer nor a > >> trademark expert, it seems logical to conclude that given the many > "Wave" > >> trademarks and the fact that Google was granted a "Google Wave" > trademark > >> that Apache would have no problem obtaining a trademark on "Apache > Wave" if > >> they wished to. > >> > >> I think it's also fairly safe to conclude that Google is never going to > >> assign a trademark with the word "Google" in it to another entity. > >> > >> If Google had a trademark on the plain word "Wave" in the > >> communication/collaboration space, then I would expect that to be a > problem. > >> But, since they don't, I don't think this is an issue. > >> > >> Perhaps Google could issue some sort of official "We promise not to sue > >> Apache Foundation over the use of the name 'Apache Wave'" just to make > >> everyone happy. > > > > Welcome to the Incubator. Yes trademarks are taken seriously, and yes > > you've made some good points that the situation with "Wave" is relatively > > unique. While these sorts of discussions can be frustrating and annoying > > at times, everyone here at Apache is basically just trying to be fair to > > both all ASF projects and past incubation efforts, and somewhat > consistent in > > what we tell others about Incubation. Different people have different > > perspectives and they are able to openly disagree without disrupting > progress. > > Happens all the time here. > > > > FWIW I can easily foresee the Incubator accepting this proposal as > written > > and kicking around the trademark issue for a while longer post > acceptance. > > This is just how we work. Personally I'd be fine with an Apache Wave > project > > graduating from the incubator, even without asking Google to abandon its > > interest in the Google Wave trademark (just as we haven't asked NCSU to > > abandon its interest in VCL). We just want to avoid any potential > confusion > > about the marks and the software they refer to. > > > > If we need a legal opinion from the org about the propriety of that > solution > > I'd be happy to go fetch one, but for now let's please just move on to > any > > other remaining issues with the proposal. > > > I completely agree with everything you said. Furthermore, I am quite > satisfied based on the responses I got to my questions that Google has > already given us permission to use Apache Wave. > > The real question is whether the ASF is comfortable in having a project > with that name. For example, since Google is retaining the rights to Google > Wave they could at any time ship a version of Apache Wave under that name - > which, I believe, is something not currently allowed for any other ASF > project. OTOH, Wave in a Box (or WIAB) sounds like it is probably quite > unique. Personally, I am torn between being consistent and the fact that a > project named Apache Wave is going to have instant market appeal. > > But a decision on what the formal project name will be should not preclude > entrance to the incubator. However, the project participants should be aware > that there is likely to be more discussion on the issue. Thanks for the summary, Ralph. I also agree with Tad's points. I think the most important thing is that any organization should be free to use Apache Wave, assuming it complies with the Apache open source license. However, most importantly: I'm glad to hear explicit resolution here isn't a blocking issue for entry to the incubator. Overall, since putting this proposal up for discussion last week, we've received: substantive feedback, gained 2 new mentors, heard from potential new contributors, and seen both binding and non-binding votes of support. To keep things moving, I'd like to go ahead and put this proposal to a vote starting on Tuesday on the west coast of the US (roughly 24 hours from now). Regards, -Dan
