On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the
>> trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a legitimate concern
>> from the PMC. The foundation is not in a business of blatant brand policing
>> (otherwise quite a few C&D should've been sent already to various Linux
>> distros).
>
> It doesn't follow that if there have been instances where the
> trademark policy may have been applied flexibly that it is anything
> other than what is documented.
The documentation is subject to quite a bit of interpretation
as I read it. See bellow:
> This thread is long and bendy. What is it that you want to achieve?
Three things:
1. Have a reference point for future questions like the one that
started this very thread (it is long -- but there actually *was*
a podling question that started it ;-).
2. Clarify some of the more subtle points of the policy
3. Have Shane (as VP of Brand) and a few active PMC members
(like Stephen Connolly) express their view points on how ASF
brands are being used by downstream Linux packagers, since this
is the prototypical relationship between the Foundation and *any*
downstream.
Based on #3 I feel like I might have a few potential suggestions to clarify
our written policy, but I'd like to see the feedback first.
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. Thanks to all who chimed in with very good feedback!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
