You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> on 2009/07/20 20:43:20 UTC
Wookie IP clearance
In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement for
the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other
institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code.
I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that it says:
"The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products widely
and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative
Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source
and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how
and software), will be strictly done:
* in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final
system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing
Know-how and its licenses; or
* to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be
integrated as an optional component."
The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties outside
of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the
process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have
contributed code.
In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this
contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think
differently.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
2009/7/21 Andrew Savory <sa...@andrewsavory.com>:
> Hi,
>
> 2009/7/20 Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>:
>> In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this
>> contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think
>> differently.
>
> Looks good. You might want to cc the wookie-dev list, so this
> important information becomes part of the project archives.
You are right, but some of the relevant people have not subscribed yet.
I'll move this discussion to Wookie dev tomorrow AM (72 hours after
list creation).
We've found a few third party contributions, most are covered by the
consortium agreement, I'll highlight them on the wookie-dev list
before committing code.
There is one potential complication that I have taken to
legal-discuss, but it is a single, easily replaceable class.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Andrew Savory <sa...@andrewsavory.com>.
Hi,
2009/7/20 Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>:
> In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this
> contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think
> differently.
Looks good. You might want to cc the wookie-dev list, so this
important information becomes part of the project archives.
Thanks,
Andrew.
--
asavory@apache.org / contact@andrewsavory.com
http://www.andrewsavory.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Andrew Savory <sa...@andrewsavory.com>.
Hi,
2009/7/22 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
Ahem, ITYM "Apache Wookie" ;-)
Flipancy aside, I'm fine with it ... the Lucasfilm mark is "wookiee",
and there doesn't appear to be anything other than a friendly Debian
hacker named wookie. I doubt he'd mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wookie
Andrew.
--
asavory@apache.org / contact@andrewsavory.com
http://www.andrewsavory.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
2009/7/22 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
I have done trademark searches in the UK and the US.
In the US there are three "dead" trademarks:
WOOKIES for Flavored nuts, shelled nuts, roasted nuts; processed
nuts; snack mix consisting primarily of processed nuts
COOKIE WOOKIE for Restaurant and canteen services
WOOKIE for TOY ACTION FIGURES
WOOKIES (nuts) also exists in the UK
There are no other references.
I therefore had no concerns about the name from a trademark perspective.
Were you asking to check or do you have a concern?
Ross
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement for
>> the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other
>> institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code.
>>
>> I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that it
>> says:
>>
>> "The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products widely
>> and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative
>> Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source
>> and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how
>> and software), will be strictly done:
>>
>> * in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final
>> system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing
>> Know-how and its licenses; or
>> * to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be
>> integrated as an optional component."
>>
>> The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties outside
>> of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the
>> process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have
>> contributed code.
>>
>> In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this
>> contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think
>> differently.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler
>>
>> OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
>> http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ross Gardler
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I was going to propose that whatever the next project approved for the
incubator is that it should be required to be named "Foo".
Ralph
On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement
>> for
>> the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other
>> institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code.
>>
>> I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that
>> it says:
>>
>> "The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products
>> widely
>> and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative
>> Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source
>> and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how
>> and software), will be strictly done:
>>
>> * in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final
>> system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing
>> Know-how and its licenses; or
>> * to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be
>> integrated as an optional component."
>>
>> The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties
>> outside
>> of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the
>> process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have
>> contributed code.
>>
>> In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this
>> contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think
>> differently.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler
>>
>> OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
>> http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:31, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a
> query such as;
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=wookie+download
>
> and be lost in the approx 135k results :)
>
Not quite as bad on that score as the "River" or "Click" or "Ace"
projects I imagine... besides, it also sort of fits alongside Droids
and Empire ;-)
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
>>
>> How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question?
>>
>> Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on their
>> proposal :)
>>
>
> Just closing the loop on the various trademark debates being done
> on prc@ and members@, of course.
>
> It's called oversight.
That Incubator does to the best we can per all sorts of policies.
The only policy communicated here thus far is to avoid Trademarks,
and according to TESS, three claims containing the word "Wookie"
(one exact match, registered IC 028) are all dead marks.
Unless you mean something else that isn't formulated yet, and
therefore impossible to discern?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski<ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
>>
>> How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question?
>>
>> Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on their
>> proposal :)
>>
>
> Just closing the loop on the various trademark debates being done
> on prc@ and members@, of course.
>
> It's called oversight.
+1
trademarks are a PITA for the incubator :-/
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
>
> ...
>
> > Just closing the loop on the various trademark debates being done
> > on prc@ and members@, of course.
> >
> > It's called oversight.
>
> Thanks Jim,
>
> I did do a trademark check before proposing it. It is mentioned in the
> documentation somewhere, but it may make sense for us to add a section
> to the proposal template to indicate the search has been done.
>
> Unless someone objects I will add a section, with links to the
> relevant search engines in the UK and US (please provide other links
> too if you have them to hand).
>
> I guess the minimum check would be the US, with suggested checks in
> other territories.
Please also consider:
http://www.apache.org/dev/project-names.html
Perhaps the template needs to refer to that too.
There is more to such issues than just a quick trademark search.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
2009/7/23 Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>:
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
...
>
> Just closing the loop on the various trademark debates being done
> on prc@ and members@, of course.
>
> It's called oversight.
Thanks Jim,
I did do a trademark check before proposing it. It is mentioned in the
documentation somewhere, but it may make sense for us to add a section
to the proposal template to indicate the search has been done.
Unless someone objects I will add a section, with links to the
relevant search engines in the UK and US (please provide other links
too if you have them to hand).
I guess the minimum check would be the US, with suggested checks in
other territories.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
>
> How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question?
>
> Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on
> their
> proposal :)
>
Just closing the loop on the various trademark debates being done
on prc@ and members@, of course.
It's called oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
2009/7/22 William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
...
> The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a
> query such as;
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=wookie+download
>
> and be lost in the approx 135k results :)
We'll be topping that list without too much effort, the number one
result has a page rank of 1.
So I'm still comfortable with it;-)
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question?
Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on their
proposal :)
The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a
query such as;
http://www.google.com/search?q=wookie+download
and be lost in the approx 135k results :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark??
On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement for
> the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other
> institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code.
>
> I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that
> it says:
>
> "The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products widely
> and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative
> Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source
> and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how
> and software), will be strictly done:
>
> * in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final
> system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing
> Know-how and its licenses; or
> * to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be
> integrated as an optional component."
>
> The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties outside
> of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the
> process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have
> contributed code.
>
> In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this
> contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think
> differently.
>
> Ross
>
> --
> Ross Gardler
>
> OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
> http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org