On 14 March 2011 03:21, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 3/13/11 10:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On
On 14/03/2011 03:21, Henri Yandell wrote:
> It depends on component.
>
> We should always claim "Apache Commons XYZ".
+1
> For a unique name, for example, Sanselan, we should state our claim of:
>
> "Apache Commons Sanselan"
> "Commons Sanselan"
> "Sanselan"
+1
> For a non-unique name,
On 14/03/2011 04:00, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Should all the logos include "Apache"?
I'd double check with trademarks@ to be sure but I don't believe that is
necessary. For example, the Apache Tomcat logo contains no text at all.
Mark
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
> > On 3/13/11 10:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >> On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/13/11 10:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/03/
On 3/13/11 10:28 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Please anyone else c
On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions. I want to make
On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> I thought we had agree
On 12/03/2011 18:03, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
> maintain that
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>
On 3/12/11 10:41 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherw
On 12/03/2011 15:52, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
>>> need to be prepared to defend all
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
>>> need to be prepared t
On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> I thought we had agreed that we are not going to do this, i.e.,
>> maintain that commons-foo is *not* an ASF trademark. Otherwise, we
>> need to be prepared to defend all of these "trademarks" which makes
>> no sense
14 matches
Mail list logo
