Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>]

(Whoops! Apologies for mixed up subjects and poor threading; I'm not on 
dev@)

I just wanted to add one other comment about this previous note:

James Hayton wrote on Feb 20, 2012:
> Maybe a crazy idea, but since the end result of any legal stuff would
> be somebody changing the name of something, why doesn't Apache
> CouchDB just re brand itself? I mean we need a website makeover,
> etc... Why don't we just ditch the name and come up with something
> better with a new vision, new leadership, etc... Lets put a few
> features in that people have been asking for, include the big couch
> code (clustering), create a new website and call it something
> different. (CouchDB 2.0 Becomes AwesomeDB lol)
>
> I understand that alot of people have quite a bit invested in the
> name CouchDB, at this may not be something realistic, but this just
> seems like at least another option we should discuss.
>
> Just my .02.
>
> James

If the bulk of the Apache CouchDB PMC truly wanted to consider a rename 
(and discussed and [VOTE]d on the matter, then we'd certainly help that 
to happen.  The PMC *is* who gets to decide the project direction.

But I'm confident that's *not* the case, since several folks have spoken 
out against it.  I personally think it would be a really bad idea to 
change the CouchDB name - especially since CouchDB is arguably the first 
project that gave such brand recognition to the "Couch" name in the 
noSQL database arena.

In most trademark issues, I'd think more people would ask why the 
*follow-on* products don't change their names, rather than the original 
product.  But in this case, I'm hoping that the pain of renaming is not 
necessary, and we can reduce user confusion by both improving our own 
story, as well as asking other Couch-named products to better 
differentiate themselves and better give us - this PMC, the committers, 
and the ASF - the credit we deserve for building and shipping Apache 
CouchDB itself in the first place.

- Shane

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

On Mar 13, 2012, at 20:52 , Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> 
>> I'd be interested to hear what other measures you think Couchbase could
>> take? Feel free to take this to private@apache.couchdb.org to discuss
>> with the PMC as well.
>> 
> One that that might help a lot is a really serious definition of what Couchbase is - particularly in visible locations like the front page of couchbase.com.  While the name implies a close relationship to CouchDB, I really can't, for the life of me, find a clear description of what it does.
> 
> I mean, CouchDB is very clearly:
> - "a document-oriented database that can be queried and indexed using JavaScript in a MapReduce fashion"
> - "A document database server, accessible via a RESTful JSON API."
> with http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/intro.html and http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/overview.html elaborating quite nicely.
> (Less visible is that CouchDB is a great application development platform.  I refer to couchapps, of course).
> 
> On the other hand, all I can figure out from couchbase.com is:
> - "Couchbase is open source NoSQL for mission-critical systems." and that one can
> - "spread your data across a cluster of machines and randomly access it with sub-millisecond latency"
> - and it's pretty quickly obvious that the most salient features of CouchDB (RESTful interface, application platform) are missing from Couchbase
> - by and large, it's completely useless for the kinds of things I'm working on (except maybe as a backend to add some scalability down the line)
> 
> What CouchDB is, and why one might use it is very clearly defined.
> 
> On the other hand, Couchbase materials (website, white paper, ...) make a generic case for NoSQL databases - but one that could equally apply to Hadoop, Riak, graph databases, and the whole range of NoSQL technologies and products.
> 
> Seems to me that not only would a very clear use case and functional description for Couchbase help distinguish the two, but would also help Couchbase position itself in the space of available technologies and in the marketplace.  If anything, the "Couch" in Couchbase implies that it's something like CouchDB - which it really isn't.  At best, it's not very helpful, at worst it's rather misleading.

[Couchbase hat]: Thanks for the input, we hope to address these things on our website, please await my report before suggesting other things for the website. I was looking for *additional* things you might think we can do.

Cheers
Jan
-- 



> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
> 

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Miles Fidelman <mf...@meetinghouse.net>]

Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> I'd be interested to hear what other measures you think Couchbase could
> take? Feel free to take this to private@apache.couchdb.org to discuss
> with the PMC as well.
>
One that that might help a lot is a really serious definition of what 
Couchbase is - particularly in visible locations like the front page of 
couchbase.com.  While the name implies a close relationship to CouchDB, 
I really can't, for the life of me, find a clear description of what it 
does.

I mean, CouchDB is very clearly:
- "a document-oriented database that can be queried and indexed using 
JavaScript in a MapReduce fashion"
- "A document database server, accessible via a RESTful JSON API."
with http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/intro.html and 
http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/overview.html elaborating quite nicely.
(Less visible is that CouchDB is a great application development 
platform.  I refer to couchapps, of course).

On the other hand, all I can figure out from couchbase.com is:
- "Couchbase is open source NoSQL for mission-critical systems." and 
that one can
- "spread your data across a cluster of machines and randomly access it 
with sub-millisecond latency"
- and it's pretty quickly obvious that the most salient features of 
CouchDB (RESTful interface, application platform) are missing from 
Couchbase
- by and large, it's completely useless for the kinds of things I'm 
working on (except maybe as a backend to add some scalability down the line)

What CouchDB is, and why one might use it is very clearly defined.

On the other hand, Couchbase materials (website, white paper, ...) make 
a generic case for NoSQL databases - but one that could equally apply to 
Hadoop, Riak, graph databases, and the whole range of NoSQL technologies 
and products.

Seems to me that not only would a very clear use case and functional 
description for Couchbase help distinguish the two, but would also help 
Couchbase position itself in the space of available technologies and in 
the marketplace.  If anything, the "Couch" in Couchbase implies that 
it's something like CouchDB - which it really isn't.  At best, it's not 
very helpful, at worst it's rather misleading.

Miles Fidelman






-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>]

I agree that is very hard to consolidate reliable docs and posts on CouchDB for the time being, however redirecting to old stuff is NOT the solution.
A good wiki is the way to go!

For the trademark discussion, a consistent use of the name CouchDB should do the trick provided the importance of visual identity is not overlooked.
The red couch logo is brilliant and is much more important for avoiding the confusion around couch-and-something, than the names.

Contrasted to Couchbase's retro-look the crisp, smart CouchDB logo is all the project need to maintain an unconfused identity.
This is top notch identity design. Who created it?

johs

On 15. mars 2012, at 09:58, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:

> Hi Kurt, Nick,
> 
> Once 1.2.0 is out the door cleaning docs/wiki up will be my top
> priority for a while,
> so it's great to have some direction on what's not working out there!
> Bring it on..
> 
> A+
> Dave

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Dave Cottlehuber <da...@muse.net.nz>]

On 15 March 2012 04:42, Kurt Milam <ku...@xioup.com> wrote:
> One more note and I'll shut my noob yapper...
>
> Jan asked whether there was anything else Couchbase could do to help fix
> the confusion, and this message is a response to that request.
>
> I never saw couch.io - it was dead before I started researching CouchDB
> seriously. I can tell you that the poorly-handled migration from couch.ioto
> couchbase.com adds to the general confusion around CouchDB. Have you guys
> heard of 301 redirects? Anyone researching CouchDB is going to come across
> blog posts, answers on StackOverflow, comments on blogs, etc., that link to
> couch.io URLs which no longer exist. You guys need to read up on 'cool
> URLs'. I suspect that much of the content that used to be at couch.io URLs
> is still online at couchbase.com URLs, but because Couchbase hasn't
> bothered to 301 redirect from the old URLs to the new ones, the content is
> practically unfindable. It took me forever to find Jan's blog articles on
> filtered replication and security, part of his series on new features in
> 1.1.1. My google fu is reasonably strong, but these important articles
> (important parts of the catalog of CouchDB documentation, imho), were
> seriously buried in my search results.
>
> In short, Couchbase is doing a disservice to itself, as well as to the
> CouchDB community by not taking the migration from couch.io from
> couchbase.com - put someone on that... Set up the correct 301 redirects.
> Fix broken links and images in blog posts. Couchbase.com contains some
> excellent CouchDB-related documentation. Do yourselves and the CouchDB
> community a favor and fix couchbase.com.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Kurt Milam
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Kurt Milam <ku...@xioup.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll pipe in as a relatively new CouchDB user, and someone who's spent a
>> reasonable amount of time in both #couchdb and #couchbase over the past few
>> weeks.
>>
>> Couchbase/CouchDB is confusing for newcomers. It was (and frankly, still
>> is) confusing for me, and I have seen more than one person in #couchdb
>> expressing confusion and even worried about whether the CouchDB ecosystem
>> is stable enough to consider using Couch(x) for the data layer in serious
>> software projects.
>>
>> I've been aware of CouchDB for at least a year now - the brand is
>> well-known in certain circles. I've been aware of NoSQL and MongoDB for
>> approximately just as long, but I'd never spent the time really looking
>> closely at NoSQL solutions until a couple of months ago.
>>
>> At that time, I began seriously researching various NoSQL solutions for
>> upcoming and ongoing projects. Frankly, the CouchDB ecosystem is the most
>> confusing of all of the various NoSQL solutions I've researched - riak,
>> mongodb. redis, among others. The documentation is spread out, disjointed
>> and sometimes out of date. A number of articles and blog posts link to
>> couch.io addresses that no longer exist (note to couchbase listeners:
>> your move from couch.io to couchbase.com was, in my opinion, handled
>> extremely poorly, with multitudes of dead links and a seriously broken blog
>> that was obviously not migrated to the new system/domain with much care).
>>
>> As I began to research NoSQL solutions more closely, I can say that
>> CouchDB was the brand with the most recognition for me, and was therefore
>> one of the first solutions that I researched. I was leaning toward using
>> CouchDB for a number of reasons - brand strength and a recommendation from
>> another developer whose opinion I respect. I can tell you that at least in
>> my experience, the decision to go with CouchDB over one of the other
>> solutions took much longer than it would have, if CouchBase hadn't confused
>> the issue, and if CouchDB's documentation had been in better order.
>>
>> In the end, I went with CouchDB primarily for the master-master
>> replication, the various solutions for installing CouchDB on mobile
>> devices, and CouchApps. To be concise, CouchDB was the correct solution for
>> the projects we're currently working on, but it took a good deal of extra
>> research (due to the confusion caused by CouchBase and the scattered state
>> of CouchDB docs).
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed, I disagree 100% with Bob Dionne's and Jason
>> Smith's estimation, and I'd say that my assessment of the situation, as a
>> new convert to CouchDB, is probably much more relevant than the estimation
>> of two Couch(x) old hands.
>>
>> Couchbase is confusing for those just starting to research CouchDB, full
>> stop.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Kurt Milam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Nick North <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As a fairly new CouchDb user, I have been confused about the relationship
>>> between CouchDb and Couchbase. For some while I was unsure whether the
>>> Couchbase site might have a more recent version of CouchDb than the
>>> CouchDb
>>> site did, especially as it talked about a forthcoming version 2, while
>>> CouchDb talked about version 1.1, and it contains API docs that are
>>> perfectly usable as CouchDb documentation.
>>>
>>> Jan Lehnardt's Looking for Apache CouchDb
>>> <http://www.couchbase.com/couchdb>page has done a lot to dispel that
>>> confusion though. I don't think there is
>>> any need for anyone to change product names, but the sort of information
>>> on
>>> that page helps a lot to make sure people go to the right place.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On 14 March 2012 09:35, Jason Smith <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bob Dionne
>>> > <di...@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
>>> > > Jan,
>>> > >
>>> > > Here's my two cents as a couchdb committer.
>>> > >
>>> > > I don't think you (Couchbase) need to do anything. My observation is
>>> > that there has been more representation about end-user confusion than
>>> there
>>> > has been actual end-user confusion.
>>> >
>>> > Completely agree.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>

Hi Kurt, Nick,

Once 1.2.0 is out the door cleaning docs/wiki up will be my top
priority for a while,
so it's great to have some direction on what's not working out there!
Bring it on..

A+
Dave

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Kurt Milam <ku...@xioup.com>]

One more note and I'll shut my noob yapper...

Jan asked whether there was anything else Couchbase could do to help fix
the confusion, and this message is a response to that request.

I never saw couch.io - it was dead before I started researching CouchDB
seriously. I can tell you that the poorly-handled migration from couch.ioto
couchbase.com adds to the general confusion around CouchDB. Have you guys
heard of 301 redirects? Anyone researching CouchDB is going to come across
blog posts, answers on StackOverflow, comments on blogs, etc., that link to
couch.io URLs which no longer exist. You guys need to read up on 'cool
URLs'. I suspect that much of the content that used to be at couch.io URLs
is still online at couchbase.com URLs, but because Couchbase hasn't
bothered to 301 redirect from the old URLs to the new ones, the content is
practically unfindable. It took me forever to find Jan's blog articles on
filtered replication and security, part of his series on new features in
1.1.1. My google fu is reasonably strong, but these important articles
(important parts of the catalog of CouchDB documentation, imho), were
seriously buried in my search results.

In short, Couchbase is doing a disservice to itself, as well as to the
CouchDB community by not taking the migration from couch.io from
couchbase.com - put someone on that... Set up the correct 301 redirects.
Fix broken links and images in blog posts. Couchbase.com contains some
excellent CouchDB-related documentation. Do yourselves and the CouchDB
community a favor and fix couchbase.com.

Best Regards,

Kurt Milam


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Kurt Milam <ku...@xioup.com> wrote:

> I'll pipe in as a relatively new CouchDB user, and someone who's spent a
> reasonable amount of time in both #couchdb and #couchbase over the past few
> weeks.
>
> Couchbase/CouchDB is confusing for newcomers. It was (and frankly, still
> is) confusing for me, and I have seen more than one person in #couchdb
> expressing confusion and even worried about whether the CouchDB ecosystem
> is stable enough to consider using Couch(x) for the data layer in serious
> software projects.
>
> I've been aware of CouchDB for at least a year now - the brand is
> well-known in certain circles. I've been aware of NoSQL and MongoDB for
> approximately just as long, but I'd never spent the time really looking
> closely at NoSQL solutions until a couple of months ago.
>
> At that time, I began seriously researching various NoSQL solutions for
> upcoming and ongoing projects. Frankly, the CouchDB ecosystem is the most
> confusing of all of the various NoSQL solutions I've researched - riak,
> mongodb. redis, among others. The documentation is spread out, disjointed
> and sometimes out of date. A number of articles and blog posts link to
> couch.io addresses that no longer exist (note to couchbase listeners:
> your move from couch.io to couchbase.com was, in my opinion, handled
> extremely poorly, with multitudes of dead links and a seriously broken blog
> that was obviously not migrated to the new system/domain with much care).
>
> As I began to research NoSQL solutions more closely, I can say that
> CouchDB was the brand with the most recognition for me, and was therefore
> one of the first solutions that I researched. I was leaning toward using
> CouchDB for a number of reasons - brand strength and a recommendation from
> another developer whose opinion I respect. I can tell you that at least in
> my experience, the decision to go with CouchDB over one of the other
> solutions took much longer than it would have, if CouchBase hadn't confused
> the issue, and if CouchDB's documentation had been in better order.
>
> In the end, I went with CouchDB primarily for the master-master
> replication, the various solutions for installing CouchDB on mobile
> devices, and CouchApps. To be concise, CouchDB was the correct solution for
> the projects we're currently working on, but it took a good deal of extra
> research (due to the confusion caused by CouchBase and the scattered state
> of CouchDB docs).
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, I disagree 100% with Bob Dionne's and Jason
> Smith's estimation, and I'd say that my assessment of the situation, as a
> new convert to CouchDB, is probably much more relevant than the estimation
> of two Couch(x) old hands.
>
> Couchbase is confusing for those just starting to research CouchDB, full
> stop.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Kurt Milam
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Nick North <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a fairly new CouchDb user, I have been confused about the relationship
>> between CouchDb and Couchbase. For some while I was unsure whether the
>> Couchbase site might have a more recent version of CouchDb than the
>> CouchDb
>> site did, especially as it talked about a forthcoming version 2, while
>> CouchDb talked about version 1.1, and it contains API docs that are
>> perfectly usable as CouchDb documentation.
>>
>> Jan Lehnardt's Looking for Apache CouchDb
>> <http://www.couchbase.com/couchdb>page has done a lot to dispel that
>> confusion though. I don't think there is
>> any need for anyone to change product names, but the sort of information
>> on
>> that page helps a lot to make sure people go to the right place.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On 14 March 2012 09:35, Jason Smith <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bob Dionne
>> > <di...@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
>> > > Jan,
>> > >
>> > > Here's my two cents as a couchdb committer.
>> > >
>> > > I don't think you (Couchbase) need to do anything. My observation is
>> > that there has been more representation about end-user confusion than
>> there
>> > has been actual end-user confusion.
>> >
>> > Completely agree.
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Kurt Milam <ku...@xioup.com>]

I'll pipe in as a relatively new CouchDB user, and someone who's spent a
reasonable amount of time in both #couchdb and #couchbase over the past few
weeks.

Couchbase/CouchDB is confusing for newcomers. It was (and frankly, still
is) confusing for me, and I have seen more than one person in #couchdb
expressing confusion and even worried about whether the CouchDB ecosystem
is stable enough to consider using Couch(x) for the data layer in serious
software projects.

I've been aware of CouchDB for at least a year now - the brand is
well-known in certain circles. I've been aware of NoSQL and MongoDB for
approximately just as long, but I'd never spent the time really looking
closely at NoSQL solutions until a couple of months ago.

At that time, I began seriously researching various NoSQL solutions for
upcoming and ongoing projects. Frankly, the CouchDB ecosystem is the most
confusing of all of the various NoSQL solutions I've researched - riak,
mongodb. redis, among others. The documentation is spread out, disjointed
and sometimes out of date. A number of articles and blog posts link to
couch.io addresses that no longer exist (note to couchbase listeners: your
move from couch.io to couchbase.com was, in my opinion, handled extremely
poorly, with multitudes of dead links and a seriously broken blog that was
obviously not migrated to the new system/domain with much care).

As I began to research NoSQL solutions more closely, I can say that CouchDB
was the brand with the most recognition for me, and was therefore one of
the first solutions that I researched. I was leaning toward using CouchDB
for a number of reasons - brand strength and a recommendation from another
developer whose opinion I respect. I can tell you that at least in my
experience, the decision to go with CouchDB over one of the other solutions
took much longer than it would have, if CouchBase hadn't confused the
issue, and if CouchDB's documentation had been in better order.

In the end, I went with CouchDB primarily for the master-master
replication, the various solutions for installing CouchDB on mobile
devices, and CouchApps. To be concise, CouchDB was the correct solution for
the projects we're currently working on, but it took a good deal of extra
research (due to the confusion caused by CouchBase and the scattered state
of CouchDB docs).

In case you hadn't noticed, I disagree 100% with Bob Dionne's and Jason
Smith's estimation, and I'd say that my assessment of the situation, as a
new convert to CouchDB, is probably much more relevant than the estimation
of two Couch(x) old hands.

Couchbase is confusing for those just starting to research CouchDB, full
stop.

Best Regards,

Kurt Milam


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Nick North <no...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a fairly new CouchDb user, I have been confused about the relationship
> between CouchDb and Couchbase. For some while I was unsure whether the
> Couchbase site might have a more recent version of CouchDb than the CouchDb
> site did, especially as it talked about a forthcoming version 2, while
> CouchDb talked about version 1.1, and it contains API docs that are
> perfectly usable as CouchDb documentation.
>
> Jan Lehnardt's Looking for Apache CouchDb
> <http://www.couchbase.com/couchdb>page has done a lot to dispel that
> confusion though. I don't think there is
> any need for anyone to change product names, but the sort of information on
> that page helps a lot to make sure people go to the right place.
>
> Nick
>
> On 14 March 2012 09:35, Jason Smith <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bob Dionne
> > <di...@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
> > > Jan,
> > >
> > > Here's my two cents as a couchdb committer.
> > >
> > > I don't think you (Couchbase) need to do anything. My observation is
> > that there has been more representation about end-user confusion than
> there
> > has been actual end-user confusion.
> >
> > Completely agree.
> >
>

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Nick North <no...@gmail.com>]

As a fairly new CouchDb user, I have been confused about the relationship
between CouchDb and Couchbase. For some while I was unsure whether the
Couchbase site might have a more recent version of CouchDb than the CouchDb
site did, especially as it talked about a forthcoming version 2, while
CouchDb talked about version 1.1, and it contains API docs that are
perfectly usable as CouchDb documentation.

Jan Lehnardt's Looking for Apache CouchDb
<http://www.couchbase.com/couchdb>page has done a lot to dispel that
confusion though. I don't think there is
any need for anyone to change product names, but the sort of information on
that page helps a lot to make sure people go to the right place.

Nick

On 14 March 2012 09:35, Jason Smith <jh...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bob Dionne
> <di...@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
> > Jan,
> >
> > Here's my two cents as a couchdb committer.
> >
> > I don't think you (Couchbase) need to do anything. My observation is
> that there has been more representation about end-user confusion than there
> has been actual end-user confusion.
>
> Completely agree.
>

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Jason Smith <jh...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bob Dionne
<di...@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
> Jan,
>
> Here's my two cents as a couchdb committer.
>
> I don't think you (Couchbase) need to do anything. My observation is that there has been more representation about end-user confusion than there has been actual end-user confusion.

Completely agree.

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Bob Dionne <di...@dionne-associates.com>]

Jan,

Here's my two cents as a couchdb committer. 

I don't think you (Couchbase) need to do anything. My observation is that there has been more representation about end-user confusion than there has been actual end-user confusion. In fact it's now become an assumption. It also strikes me that there is no confusion on the part of the posters making such representations.

There is no trademark issue. This may be a minority of one legal opinion.

As an aside, thanks for resuming the practice of publishing status reports, I think it helps inform community members who don't frequent the chat rooms. As a suggestion you might consider listing the things you'd like to see as accomplishments in the next status report. 

Regards,

Bob
On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:

> 
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 14:52 , Robert Newson wrote:
> 
>> I don't believe any CouchDB committer or PMC member has any interest
>> in changing the project name.
>> 
>> I personally feel, as you do, that it's the other products that must
>> clearly distinguish themselves from CouchDB. The company and product
>> called "Couchbase" clearly confuses the community, who reasonably, but
>> erroneously, believe that it's related to CouchDB (the truth, now, is
>> that couchdb is an important but internal component). Sponsoring the
>> "CouchConf" conferences which talks about "Couch NoSQL technology" but
>> also "the Couchbase technology" is similarly confusing, especially as
>> "CouchConf"'s in the past were about Apache CouchDB and things
>> compatible or complementary to it.
>> 
>> For my part, the ideal solution would be for Couchbase to rename its
>> product and conferences to not imply that they are about CouchDB, to
>> me that means not using the word 'couch'. I understand that the
>> trademark we hold is on 'Apache CouchDB' and that we cannot assert any
>> rights over the word 'couch', but I don't think anyone can deny that
>> confusion caused is real. Since the Couchbase product is not CouchDB
>> compatible it's surprising that it hasn't been rebranded for marketing
>> reasons already.
> 
> [both hats]: While I agree that, looking solely at a potential confusion
> issue, a rename would be a big step towards avoiding said issue, it is
> also not very practical (as per Shane, things aren't binary) to expect
> Couchbase to change their naming.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what other measures you think Couchbase could
> take? Feel free to take this to private@apache.couchdb.org to discuss
> with the PMC as well.
> 
> Cheers
> Jan
> -- 
> 
> 
>> 
>> B.
>> 
>> On 13 March 2012 04:01, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>>> (Whoops! Apologies for mixed up subjects and poor threading; I'm not on
>>> dev@)
>>> 
>>> I just wanted to add one other comment about this previous note:
>>> 
>>> James Hayton wrote on Feb 20, 2012:
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe a crazy idea, but since the end result of any legal stuff would
>>>> be somebody changing the name of something, why doesn't Apache
>>>> CouchDB just re brand itself? I mean we need a website makeover,
>>>> etc... Why don't we just ditch the name and come up with something
>>>> better with a new vision, new leadership, etc... Lets put a few
>>>> features in that people have been asking for, include the big couch
>>>> code (clustering), create a new website and call it something
>>>> different. (CouchDB 2.0 Becomes AwesomeDB lol)
>>>> 
>>>> I understand that alot of people have quite a bit invested in the
>>>> name CouchDB, at this may not be something realistic, but this just
>>>> seems like at least another option we should discuss.
>>>> 
>>>> Just my .02.
>>>> 
>>>> James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If the bulk of the Apache CouchDB PMC truly wanted to consider a rename (and
>>> discussed and [VOTE]d on the matter, then we'd certainly help that to
>>> happen.  The PMC *is* who gets to decide the project direction.
>>> 
>>> But I'm confident that's *not* the case, since several folks have spoken out
>>> against it.  I personally think it would be a really bad idea to change the
>>> CouchDB name - especially since CouchDB is arguably the first project that
>>> gave such brand recognition to the "Couch" name in the noSQL database arena.
>>> 
>>> In most trademark issues, I'd think more people would ask why the
>>> *follow-on* products don't change their names, rather than the original
>>> product.  But in this case, I'm hoping that the pain of renaming is not
>>> necessary, and we can reduce user confusion by both improving our own story,
>>> as well as asking other Couch-named products to better differentiate
>>> themselves and better give us - this PMC, the committers, and the ASF - the
>>> credit we deserve for building and shipping Apache CouchDB itself in the
>>> first place.
>>> 
>>> - Shane
>>> 
> 

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

On Mar 13, 2012, at 14:52 , Robert Newson wrote:

> I don't believe any CouchDB committer or PMC member has any interest
> in changing the project name.
> 
> I personally feel, as you do, that it's the other products that must
> clearly distinguish themselves from CouchDB. The company and product
> called "Couchbase" clearly confuses the community, who reasonably, but
> erroneously, believe that it's related to CouchDB (the truth, now, is
> that couchdb is an important but internal component). Sponsoring the
> "CouchConf" conferences which talks about "Couch NoSQL technology" but
> also "the Couchbase technology" is similarly confusing, especially as
> "CouchConf"'s in the past were about Apache CouchDB and things
> compatible or complementary to it.
> 
> For my part, the ideal solution would be for Couchbase to rename its
> product and conferences to not imply that they are about CouchDB, to
> me that means not using the word 'couch'. I understand that the
> trademark we hold is on 'Apache CouchDB' and that we cannot assert any
> rights over the word 'couch', but I don't think anyone can deny that
> confusion caused is real. Since the Couchbase product is not CouchDB
> compatible it's surprising that it hasn't been rebranded for marketing
> reasons already.

[both hats]: While I agree that, looking solely at a potential confusion
issue, a rename would be a big step towards avoiding said issue, it is
also not very practical (as per Shane, things aren't binary) to expect
Couchbase to change their naming.

I'd be interested to hear what other measures you think Couchbase could
take? Feel free to take this to private@apache.couchdb.org to discuss
with the PMC as well.

Cheers
Jan
-- 


> 
> B.
> 
> On 13 March 2012 04:01, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>> (Whoops! Apologies for mixed up subjects and poor threading; I'm not on
>> dev@)
>> 
>> I just wanted to add one other comment about this previous note:
>> 
>> James Hayton wrote on Feb 20, 2012:
>>> 
>>> Maybe a crazy idea, but since the end result of any legal stuff would
>>> be somebody changing the name of something, why doesn't Apache
>>> CouchDB just re brand itself? I mean we need a website makeover,
>>> etc... Why don't we just ditch the name and come up with something
>>> better with a new vision, new leadership, etc... Lets put a few
>>> features in that people have been asking for, include the big couch
>>> code (clustering), create a new website and call it something
>>> different. (CouchDB 2.0 Becomes AwesomeDB lol)
>>> 
>>> I understand that alot of people have quite a bit invested in the
>>> name CouchDB, at this may not be something realistic, but this just
>>> seems like at least another option we should discuss.
>>> 
>>> Just my .02.
>>> 
>>> James
>> 
>> 
>> If the bulk of the Apache CouchDB PMC truly wanted to consider a rename (and
>> discussed and [VOTE]d on the matter, then we'd certainly help that to
>> happen.  The PMC *is* who gets to decide the project direction.
>> 
>> But I'm confident that's *not* the case, since several folks have spoken out
>> against it.  I personally think it would be a really bad idea to change the
>> CouchDB name - especially since CouchDB is arguably the first project that
>> gave such brand recognition to the "Couch" name in the noSQL database arena.
>> 
>> In most trademark issues, I'd think more people would ask why the
>> *follow-on* products don't change their names, rather than the original
>> product.  But in this case, I'm hoping that the pain of renaming is not
>> necessary, and we can reduce user confusion by both improving our own story,
>> as well as asking other Couch-named products to better differentiate
>> themselves and better give us - this PMC, the committers, and the ASF - the
>> credit we deserve for building and shipping Apache CouchDB itself in the
>> first place.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[ro...@gmail.com]

I know I kicked this all off on dev a few weeks ago so I'd just like to say
that from my perspective, as a developer using the product in production
systems and trying to sell it to other clients as a suitable technology to
use, Robert has it spot on.

Roger


On 13 March 2012 13:52, Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:

> I don't believe any CouchDB committer or PMC member has any interest
> in changing the project name.
>
> I personally feel, as you do, that it's the other products that must
> clearly distinguish themselves from CouchDB. The company and product
> called "Couchbase" clearly confuses the community, who reasonably, but
> erroneously, believe that it's related to CouchDB (the truth, now, is
> that couchdb is an important but internal component). Sponsoring the
> "CouchConf" conferences which talks about "Couch NoSQL technology" but
> also "the Couchbase technology" is similarly confusing, especially as
> "CouchConf"'s in the past were about Apache CouchDB and things
> compatible or complementary to it.
>
> For my part, the ideal solution would be for Couchbase to rename its
> product and conferences to not imply that they are about CouchDB, to
> me that means not using the word 'couch'. I understand that the
> trademark we hold is on 'Apache CouchDB' and that we cannot assert any
> rights over the word 'couch', but I don't think anyone can deny that
> confusion caused is real. Since the Couchbase product is not CouchDB
> compatible it's surprising that it hasn't been rebranded for marketing
> reasons already.
>
> B.
>
> On 13 March 2012 04:01, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> > (Whoops! Apologies for mixed up subjects and poor threading; I'm not on
> > dev@)
> >
> > I just wanted to add one other comment about this previous note:
> >
> > James Hayton wrote on Feb 20, 2012:
> >>
> >> Maybe a crazy idea, but since the end result of any legal stuff would
> >> be somebody changing the name of something, why doesn't Apache
> >> CouchDB just re brand itself? I mean we need a website makeover,
> >> etc... Why don't we just ditch the name and come up with something
> >> better with a new vision, new leadership, etc... Lets put a few
> >> features in that people have been asking for, include the big couch
> >> code (clustering), create a new website and call it something
> >> different. (CouchDB 2.0 Becomes AwesomeDB lol)
> >>
> >> I understand that alot of people have quite a bit invested in the
> >> name CouchDB, at this may not be something realistic, but this just
> >> seems like at least another option we should discuss.
> >>
> >> Just my .02.
> >>
> >> James
> >
> >
> > If the bulk of the Apache CouchDB PMC truly wanted to consider a rename
> (and
> > discussed and [VOTE]d on the matter, then we'd certainly help that to
> > happen.  The PMC *is* who gets to decide the project direction.
> >
> > But I'm confident that's *not* the case, since several folks have spoken
> out
> > against it.  I personally think it would be a really bad idea to change
> the
> > CouchDB name - especially since CouchDB is arguably the first project
> that
> > gave such brand recognition to the "Couch" name in the noSQL database
> arena.
> >
> > In most trademark issues, I'd think more people would ask why the
> > *follow-on* products don't change their names, rather than the original
> > product.  But in this case, I'm hoping that the pain of renaming is not
> > necessary, and we can reduce user confusion by both improving our own
> story,
> > as well as asking other Couch-named products to better differentiate
> > themselves and better give us - this PMC, the committers, and the ASF -
> the
> > credit we deserve for building and shipping Apache CouchDB itself in the
> > first place.
> >
> > - Shane
> >
>

Re: Couchbase trademark issues

[Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org>]

I don't believe any CouchDB committer or PMC member has any interest
in changing the project name.

I personally feel, as you do, that it's the other products that must
clearly distinguish themselves from CouchDB. The company and product
called "Couchbase" clearly confuses the community, who reasonably, but
erroneously, believe that it's related to CouchDB (the truth, now, is
that couchdb is an important but internal component). Sponsoring the
"CouchConf" conferences which talks about "Couch NoSQL technology" but
also "the Couchbase technology" is similarly confusing, especially as
"CouchConf"'s in the past were about Apache CouchDB and things
compatible or complementary to it.

For my part, the ideal solution would be for Couchbase to rename its
product and conferences to not imply that they are about CouchDB, to
me that means not using the word 'couch'. I understand that the
trademark we hold is on 'Apache CouchDB' and that we cannot assert any
rights over the word 'couch', but I don't think anyone can deny that
confusion caused is real. Since the Couchbase product is not CouchDB
compatible it's surprising that it hasn't been rebranded for marketing
reasons already.

B.

On 13 March 2012 04:01, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> (Whoops! Apologies for mixed up subjects and poor threading; I'm not on
> dev@)
>
> I just wanted to add one other comment about this previous note:
>
> James Hayton wrote on Feb 20, 2012:
>>
>> Maybe a crazy idea, but since the end result of any legal stuff would
>> be somebody changing the name of something, why doesn't Apache
>> CouchDB just re brand itself? I mean we need a website makeover,
>> etc... Why don't we just ditch the name and come up with something
>> better with a new vision, new leadership, etc... Lets put a few
>> features in that people have been asking for, include the big couch
>> code (clustering), create a new website and call it something
>> different. (CouchDB 2.0 Becomes AwesomeDB lol)
>>
>> I understand that alot of people have quite a bit invested in the
>> name CouchDB, at this may not be something realistic, but this just
>> seems like at least another option we should discuss.
>>
>> Just my .02.
>>
>> James
>
>
> If the bulk of the Apache CouchDB PMC truly wanted to consider a rename (and
> discussed and [VOTE]d on the matter, then we'd certainly help that to
> happen.  The PMC *is* who gets to decide the project direction.
>
> But I'm confident that's *not* the case, since several folks have spoken out
> against it.  I personally think it would be a really bad idea to change the
> CouchDB name - especially since CouchDB is arguably the first project that
> gave such brand recognition to the "Couch" name in the noSQL database arena.
>
> In most trademark issues, I'd think more people would ask why the
> *follow-on* products don't change their names, rather than the original
> product.  But in this case, I'm hoping that the pain of renaming is not
> necessary, and we can reduce user confusion by both improving our own story,
> as well as asking other Couch-named products to better differentiate
> themselves and better give us - this PMC, the committers, and the ASF - the
> credit we deserve for building and shipping Apache CouchDB itself in the
> first place.
>
> - Shane
>