You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> on 2011/03/12 05:20:44 UTC

Re: svn commit: r1080839 - in /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src: media/logo.xcf site/resources/images/logo.png

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 to me personally.

Phil

On 3/11/11 6:36 PM, ggregory@apache.org wrote:
> Author: ggregory
> Date: Sat Mar 12 01:36:58 2011
> New Revision: 1080839
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1080839&view=rev
> Log:
> Add TM to logo per Apache branding requirements.
>
> Modified:
>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf
>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png
>
> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf?rev=1080839&r1=1080838&r2=1080839&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> Binary files - no diff available.
>
> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png?rev=1080839&r1=1080838&r2=1080839&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> Binary files - no diff available.
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>
>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>> anyway).
>>
>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
>
> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
> Board could require us to change.
>
> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.

I saw your message to board@ and was happy with it.

Niall

> Phil
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On 3/11/11 6:36 PM, ggregory@apache.org wrote:
>>>> Author: ggregory
>>>> Date: Sat Mar 12 01:36:58 2011
>>>> New Revision: 1080839
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1080839&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Add TM to logo per Apache branding requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf
>>>>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png
>>>>
>>>> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf?rev=1080839&r1=1080838&r2=1080839&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> Binary files - no diff available.
>>>>
>>>> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png?rev=1080839&r1=1080838&r2=1080839&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> Binary files - no diff available.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.

On 14 March 2011 03:21, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> 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 <ma...@apache.org> 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:
>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>>>>>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>>>>>>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>>>>>>> - Apache Commons
>>>>>>> - Apache Commons Foo
>>>>>>> - Commons Foo
>>>>>> Why, exactly?
>>>>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
>>>>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way
>>>>> of stopping abuse.
>>>> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable from 0 as a double?
>>> For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think
>>> the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0.
>>>
>>>> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential volunteers.
>>> I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression.
>> The impression that we are a commercial entity, or that we are
>> representing the interests of other commercial entities.  Most
>> people see trademarks as only meaningful in commercial settings.  We
>> have a more sophisticated view @apache that views trademarks as
>> meaningful outside of commercial use, or more precisely as limiting
>> commercial use of the names.  My admittedly minority view is that
>> aggressively "claiming marks" does not help our public image.
>>
>> I will shut up about this now and we can proceed with the changes,
>> since this is consistent with ASF policy and we do not have
>> consensus to challenge that policy.
>
> It depends on component.
>
> We should always claim "Apache Commons XYZ". Seems weak in terms of
> energy given that we claim "Apache", but presumably there are good
> reasons why "Apache Commons XYZ" gives us more value/power/something
> than Apache on its own does.
>
> For a unique name, for example, Sanselan, we should state our claim of:
>
>  "Apache Commons Sanselan"
>  "Commons Sanselan"
>  "Sanselan"
>
> At least I'm assuming that trademarks@ will want to keep a name like
> 'Sanselan' as close to its chest as possible.
>
> For a non-unique name, for example, Math, we should state our claim of:
>
>  "Apache Commons Math".
>
> [where claiming 'Math' is ludicrous, and claiming 'Commons Math' is
> only a shade less ludicrous].
>
> This does assume that we're not claiming 'Commons'. If we claim
> 'Commons', then 'Commons Math' is a direct follow-on; but claiming
> 'Commons' is against our aims imo.
>
> On the technical side - we can't do this in a generic commons-build
> way imo. We have to split our names into 'hug close' and 'ludicrous'
> and do footers accordingly.

I think it would be possible; the skin does already allow for property
input from component POMs already.
The components which need to protect their bare names could define a
special property.

But it's also possible to override the entire footer in a component.
The only disadvantage to doing that is if the rest of the footer ever
has to be changed, we would have to update all components that had
customised the footer.
But there are probably not many of those, and it's not difficult to do.

> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ma...@apache.org> 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:
> >> <snip/>
> >>>>>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to
> make
> >>>>>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
> >>>>>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
> >>>>>> - Apache Commons
> >>>>>> - Apache Commons Foo
> >>>>>> - Commons Foo
> >>>>> Why, exactly?
> >>>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
> >>>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no
> way
> >>>> of stopping abuse.
> >>> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable
> from 0 as a double?
> >> For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think
> >> the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0.
> >>
> >>> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time
> convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making
> changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when
> these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential
> volunteers.
> >> I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression.
> > The impression that we are a commercial entity, or that we are
> > representing the interests of other commercial entities.  Most
> > people see trademarks as only meaningful in commercial settings.  We
> > have a more sophisticated view @apache that views trademarks as
> > meaningful outside of commercial use, or more precisely as limiting
> > commercial use of the names.  My admittedly minority view is that
> > aggressively "claiming marks" does not help our public image.
> >
> > I will shut up about this now and we can proceed with the changes,
> > since this is consistent with ASF policy and we do not have
> > consensus to challenge that policy.
>
> It depends on component.
>
> We should always claim "Apache Commons XYZ". Seems weak in terms of
> energy given that we claim "Apache", but presumably there are good
> reasons why "Apache Commons XYZ" gives us more value/power/something
> than Apache on its own does.
>
> For a unique name, for example, Sanselan, we should state our claim of:
>
>  "Apache Commons Sanselan"
>  "Commons Sanselan"
>  "Sanselan"
>
> At least I'm assuming that trademarks@ will want to keep a name like
> 'Sanselan' as close to its chest as possible.
>
> For a non-unique name, for example, Math, we should state our claim of:
>
>  "Apache Commons Math".
>
> [where claiming 'Math' is ludicrous, and claiming 'Commons Math' is
> only a shade less ludicrous].
>
> This does assume that we're not claiming 'Commons'. If we claim
> 'Commons', then 'Commons Math' is a direct follow-on; but claiming
> 'Commons' is against our aims imo.
>
> On the technical side - we can't do this in a generic commons-build
> way imo. We have to split our names into 'hug close' and 'ludicrous'
> and do footers accordingly.
>

Should all the logos include "Apache"?

Gary

>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.

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, for example, Math, we should state our claim of:
> 
>   "Apache Commons Math".
> 
> [where claiming 'Math' is ludicrous, and claiming 'Commons Math' is
> only a shade less ludicrous].

I agree claiming "Math" is a non-starter.

I'm now on the fence with regard to "Commons Math". We don't want to
prevent other communities creating their own "Community Commons Foo" and
Foo==Math or Foo==Lang are likely things they will want to create. On
the other hand, "Commons Math" is a frequently used shortening for
"Apache Commons Math". I'm really not sure what is the best thing to do
here.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> 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 <ma...@apache.org> 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:
>> <snip/>
>>>>>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>>>>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>>>>>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>>>>>> - Apache Commons
>>>>>> - Apache Commons Foo
>>>>>> - Commons Foo
>>>>> Why, exactly?
>>>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
>>>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way
>>>> of stopping abuse.
>>> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable from 0 as a double?
>> For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think
>> the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0.
>>
>>> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential volunteers.
>> I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression.
> The impression that we are a commercial entity, or that we are
> representing the interests of other commercial entities.  Most
> people see trademarks as only meaningful in commercial settings.  We
> have a more sophisticated view @apache that views trademarks as
> meaningful outside of commercial use, or more precisely as limiting
> commercial use of the names.  My admittedly minority view is that
> aggressively "claiming marks" does not help our public image.
>
> I will shut up about this now and we can proceed with the changes,
> since this is consistent with ASF policy and we do not have
> consensus to challenge that policy.

It depends on component.

We should always claim "Apache Commons XYZ". Seems weak in terms of
energy given that we claim "Apache", but presumably there are good
reasons why "Apache Commons XYZ" gives us more value/power/something
than Apache on its own does.

For a unique name, for example, Sanselan, we should state our claim of:

  "Apache Commons Sanselan"
  "Commons Sanselan"
  "Sanselan"

At least I'm assuming that trademarks@ will want to keep a name like
'Sanselan' as close to its chest as possible.

For a non-unique name, for example, Math, we should state our claim of:

  "Apache Commons Math".

[where claiming 'Math' is ludicrous, and claiming 'Commons Math' is
only a shade less ludicrous].

This does assume that we're not claiming 'Commons'. If we claim
'Commons', then 'Commons Math' is a direct follow-on; but claiming
'Commons' is against our aims imo.

On the technical side - we can't do this in a generic commons-build
way imo. We have to split our names into 'hug close' and 'ludicrous'
and do footers accordingly.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.

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 <ma...@apache.org> 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:
> <snip/>
>>>>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>>>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>>>>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>>>>> - Apache Commons
>>>>> - Apache Commons Foo
>>>>> - Commons Foo
>>>> Why, exactly?
>>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
>>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way
>>> of stopping abuse.
>> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable from 0 as a double?
> For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think
> the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0.
>
>> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential volunteers.
> I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression.
The impression that we are a commercial entity, or that we are
representing the interests of other commercial entities.  Most
people see trademarks as only meaningful in commercial settings.  We
have a more sophisticated view @apache that views trademarks as
meaningful outside of commercial use, or more precisely as limiting
commercial use of the names.  My admittedly minority view is that
aggressively "claiming marks" does not help our public image.

I will shut up about this now and we can proceed with the changes,
since this is consistent with ASF policy and we do not have
consensus to challenge that policy.

Phil
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.

On 13/03/2011 16:45, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> 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:
<snip/>
>>>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>>>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>>>> - Apache Commons
>>>> - Apache Commons Foo
>>>> - Commons Foo
>>> Why, exactly?
>>
>> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
>> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way
>> of stopping abuse.
> 
> Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable from 0 as a double?

For all Commons components, over their potential lifetime, yes I think
the probability is a lot closer to 1 than 0.

> Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential volunteers.

I don't see how claiming our trademarks can give the wrong impression.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.




On Mar 13, 2011, at 1:24 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> 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 <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
>>>>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>>>>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>>>>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>>>>> anyway).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
>>>> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
>>>> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
>>>> Board could require us to change.
>>>> 
>>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>>> 
>>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>>> - Apache Commons
>>> - Apache Commons Foo
>>> - Commons Foo
>> Why, exactly?
> 
> Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
> "Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way
> of stopping abuse.

Do you honestly think that the probability of that is distinguishable from 0 as a double?  Seriously, I have a hard time envisioning this, and an even harder time convincing myself that we should be spending precious volunteer hours making changes throughout the commons sites to mitigate this risk.  Especially when these changes may give the wrong impression to some users / potential volunteers.  (I know the latter is a minority view, as may be the former)


> 
>> And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?"
> 
> Because there no reason that we can't. Whilst those individual words
> would be hard to trademark, "Commons Email" and "Apache Commons Email"
> should not present a problem.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.

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 <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
>>>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>>>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>>>
>>>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>>>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>>>> anyway).
>>>>
>>>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
>>> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
>>> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
>>> Board could require us to change.
>>>
>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>>
>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>> - Apache Commons
>> - Apache Commons Foo
>> - Commons Foo
> Why, exactly?

Because I don't want BigCorp to be able to create a product called
"Apache Commons Math". If we don't protect our marks then we have no way
of stopping abuse.

> And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?"

Because there no reason that we can't. Whilst those individual words
would be hard to trademark, "Commons Email" and "Apache Commons Email"
should not present a problem.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> 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 <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
>>>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>>>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>>>
>>>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>>>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>>>> anyway).
>>>>
>>>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
>>> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
>>> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
>>> Board could require us to change.
>>>
>>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
>> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.

I don't care about the difficulty. I do think we want the software
world to use the word, similar to Incubator, Labs, "Software
Foundation" and Attic; and restricting it is not in our interest.
Whether that means claim-and-broadly-license or not-claim, I would
leave to trademarks@/legal counsel.

I realize that I earlier said 'claiming Commons bad' as well; I was
jumping to a solution instead of letting Shane et al deal with our
requirement which is de-facto standard.

>> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
>> - Apache Commons
>> - Apache Commons Foo
>> - Commons Foo
> Why, exactly?

The foundation's trademark direction has been to claim everything it can.

> And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?"

Seems to me that it's claimable. We are currently using the phrase, as
a compound mark it isn't a common word (imo) even if it is made up of
two common words and it's in accordance with foundation strategy.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.

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 <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
>>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>>
>>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>>> anyway).
>>>
>>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
>> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
>> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
>> Board could require us to change.
>>
>> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
>> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.
> I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.
>
> I think we should be claiming/protecting:
> - Apache Commons
> - Apache Commons Foo
> - Commons Foo
Why, exactly?

And why do we think we *can* claim, for example, "Commons Email?"

Phil
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.

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 <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
>> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
>> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>>
>> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
>> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
>> anyway).
>>
>> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.
> 
> OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
> but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
> Board could require us to change.
> 
> Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
> sure I am not misrepresenting our views.

I think we would have difficulty claiming "Commons" as a trademark.

I think we should be claiming/protecting:
- Apache Commons
- Apache Commons Foo
- Commons Foo

Mark



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

Trademakrs and logos. WAS beanutils commit msg...

Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.

On 3/12/11 8:45 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 March 2011 04:20, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> 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 to me personally.
> I thought you just meant that we should not claim "Commons" as a
> trademark, rather than not claiming any "Commons YYY" names as marks.
>
> However whatever happens re Commons, we still need to claim trademark
> on Apache at the bottom of our pages (so most of the work was needed
> anyway).
>
> I don't really mind what is decided, so long as it is agreed with @Trademarks.

OK.  I just asked on board@.  They may toss it over to trademarks,
but I personally see this as first a Commons decision, which the
Board could require us to change.

Please anyone else chime in with different opinions.  I want to make
sure I am not misrepresenting our views.

Phil
>> Phil
>>
>> On 3/11/11 6:36 PM, ggregory@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: ggregory
>>> Date: Sat Mar 12 01:36:58 2011
>>> New Revision: 1080839
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1080839&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Add TM to logo per Apache branding requirements.
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf
>>>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png
>>>
>>> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/media/logo.xcf?rev=1080839&r1=1080838&r2=1080839&view=diff
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> Binary files - no diff available.
>>>
>>> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/site/resources/images/logo.png?rev=1080839&r1=1080838&r2=1080839&view=diff
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> Binary files - no diff available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org