Re: Returned post for dev@community.apache.org

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

Ooops, trying again:
Shane Curcuru wrote (in an earlier email that didn't get delivered):
> In general, projects at Apache Extras are just like any third party 
> product, and should not use Apache marks in their product name.  The 
> only blanket exception is to use a Powered By or other similarly 
> distinct form of a name as noted here:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#poweredby
> 
> The issue from the trademark perspective is that Apache Extras projects 
> are run by third parties, and are explicitly not run by our PMCs.  To 
> ensure Apache trademarks remain associated with the actual Apache 
> projects, we need to ensure that third parties respect those marks.
> 
> That said, this is a good area for discussion, because we do want to be 
> as flexible as possible with third parties who do respect our marks, who 
> are building software that enhances our products.
> 
> I'm wondering if we can come up with a basic process by where PMCs can 
> approve specific Apache Extras projects in a way that 1) allows obvious 
> names like this to be OK, and 2) ensures Apache marks aren't diluted in 
> other areas, especially outside of Apache Extras.
> 
> Although we try to make explicitly clear the separation between Apache 
> Extras projects and Apache projects, it feels like there will be plenty 
> of times where existing committers and PMC members will be using Apache 
> Extras to host exactly this kind of thing - non-AL code that is an 
> obvious add-on to an existing Apache project.  Given the fact that in 
> this case, we already know the people running the project, and the fact 
> that we exercise some control over the apache-extras.org domain and 
> hosting itself, I'd feel comfortable in having a much more liberal 
> "licensing" policy for projects at Apache Extras.
> 
> - Shane, looking for feedback and people to actively help organize this
> 
> 
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>> That part of the FAQ is under the control of the trademarks committee. 
>> So I'm copying to that list.
>>
>> As a reminder, our policy is not to police apache-extras.org unless 
>> there is a complaint from an Apache Project.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 06/04/2011 07:48, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>> L.S.,
>>>
>>>
>>> In the FAQ at apache-extras.org (
>>> http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html ) it says
>>>
>>> "Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
>>> Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache or an
>>> existing Apache project name in your Apache Extras project name, and
>>> 2) not using org.apache as the prefix for your bundle or package name.
>>> "
>>>
>>> While creating a project called servicemix-extra, this was seemingly
>>> in violation with part 1) because we do in include ServiceMix in the
>>> Apache Extras project name.  Since there are already a lot of projects
>>> out there that have the same naming convention, I suspect the FAQ
>>> entry should read something like...
>>>
>>> "Therefore, we require project owners to respect the Apache Software
>>> Foundation trademark policy, including 1) not using Apache in your
>>> Apache Extras project name, 2) not using an existing Apache project
>>> name as your Apache Extras project name, and 3) not using org.apache
>>> as the prefix for your bundle or package name. "
>>>
>>> Is this the correct interpretation of the given FAQ entry?  If so,
>>> shouldn't we update the entry to avoid confusing simple souls like
>>> myself?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>> ------------------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
> 
>