You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> on 2012/01/29 11:45:02 UTC
[names] Public Review
The new documentation describing in more detail one way to check the
suitability of the proposed name is just about ready for public review
(at least, once the mirrors have sync'd)
The aim is to be able to replace the outdated task in the status
template with a link to good documentation consist with the brand
team's approach to podling names. Please take a look.
It's fine to just dive in to improve phrasing, add examples etc.
Here's a good place to ask questions. This thread is also a good place
to discuss content and dispute process details.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 January 2012 13:01, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
>> Hey Robert,
>
> Leo :-)
>
> (Great to hear from you again)
>
>> Thanks for this; it was obviously a lot of work!
>
> A parting gift to the Incubator :-)
As a parting gift to you then...
Rave is entering its graduation cycle. They followed your docs to do
the name search and have decided that they will re-run the search
prior to each board report as a proactive means of ensuring they
protect their trademark.
Thanks.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Hey Robert,
Leo :-)
(Great to hear from you again)
> Thanks for this; it was obviously a lot of work!
A parting gift to the Incubator :-)
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Hey Robert,
Thanks for this; it was obviously a lot of work! I like the word
picks, flow and style of this guide a lot. There's a lot to read here
and some new stuff to learn for me -- I confess I've been ignoring as
much about trademarks as I can until a time comes up when I actually
have a need to dig into it more. So I can't really help write, but I
can ask questions :)
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The new documentation describing in more detail one way to check the
>> suitability of the proposed name is just about ready for public review
>
> The URL is http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html
>
>> It's fine to just dive in to improve phrasing, add examples etc.
Once the information is collected and collated,
then ask the trademark team to help interpret and
analyse these results on the private lists, copying
in the PPMC.
Finally discuss the results of your investigation on
the private PPMC list.
We could probably do with some guidance of *how* to do this
discussion. I.e. I _assume_ the CC is to trademarks@ but it's not
stated. Similarly it's not quite clear what things need to be
discussed. The discussion could be "well a lot of stuff uses this name
too but whatever it's probably ok" -- "+1", or it could be "looks
risky we may need to evaluate whether we are infringing" (and then
what happens?).
>> Here's a good place to ask questions. This thread is also a good place
>> to discuss content and dispute process details.
* I personally think the way you wrote down that this is one possible
approach is quite clear. I'll leave it to others to fix what they
don't like about it ;-)
I agree it's important that we know it's one possible way to care of
this stuff. For example with Apache OpenOffice or Apache SpamAssassin
or Apache Jena or other long-existing projects that come to the
incubator the process is different since they typically did it years
ago, are known to be the number one hit for that phrase, etc etc.
* It's not clear to me what role the trademarks folks have in this
process; I thought trademarks@ was primarily concerned with defending
our marks, and providing policy to PMCs, i.e. not with doing the
picking of the marks we use? Is it an advisory role because these
folks happen to have experience, or is the advice intended to be, err,
'binding'?
* If you are a new project and you have to pick a name, this is a
useful guide. If you are a new project and you picked a name, but you
didn't do your due diligence, you need to be nudged rather insistingly
into doing your due diligence. And that then has a painful dynamic to
it, because a group of people picked and decided and voted on a name
and then they changed it.
To fix this, we could put the process for the picking of the suitable
name as part of the proposal process, i.e. you can choose to do it
before you even send your proposal to general@. WDYT?
> Thus, instead of setting strict rules and requirements, I think the
> guide should just document the best current practice and suggest why
> following it is a good idea.
Hmm, so there's an interesting balance here, and it's probably overdue
for some shifting. I think we do need to make clearer the MUSTs around
trademarks to new projects, basically passing on the PMC
responsibilities we've gotten from the board via trademarks@. Perhaps
we need another bit of documentation in the policy that points out the
MUSTs, and then that bit links to this guide.
cheers,
Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:33:38 +0000:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> >> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
>> >> > something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
>> >> > brand team.
>> >>
>> >> Was this a recommendation or a requirement? I.e. are we talking about
>> >> MUST, SHOULD or MAY?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thread:
>> >
>> > https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/trademarks/201109.mbox/<4E...@apache.org>
>> > Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:37:33 +0100
>> > To: trademarks@apache.org
>> > Subject: Guidance For Podlings [WAS Re: Trademark questions with regards to
>> > Apache Flume incubator podling.]
>> > Reply-To: trademarks@apache.org
>> > Message-ID: <4E...@apache.org>
>>
>> There are sadly a number of other threads that are relevant too :-(
>
> Links?
Brand doesn't have much traffic. To understand the context, read
everything since Autumn 2011.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:33:38 +0000:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> >> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
> >> > something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
> >> > brand team.
> >>
> >> Was this a recommendation or a requirement? I.e. are we talking about
> >> MUST, SHOULD or MAY?
> >>
> >
> > Thread:
> >
> > https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/trademarks/201109.mbox/<4E...@apache.org>
> > Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:37:33 +0100
> > To: trademarks@apache.org
> > Subject: Guidance For Podlings [WAS Re: Trademark questions with regards to
> > Apache Flume incubator podling.]
> > Reply-To: trademarks@apache.org
> > Message-ID: <4E...@apache.org>
>
> There are sadly a number of other threads that are relevant too :-(
Links?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
>> > something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
>> > brand team.
>>
>> Was this a recommendation or a requirement? I.e. are we talking about
>> MUST, SHOULD or MAY?
>>
>
> Thread:
>
> https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/trademarks/201109.mbox/<4E...@apache.org>
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:37:33 +0100
> To: trademarks@apache.org
> Subject: Guidance For Podlings [WAS Re: Trademark questions with regards to
> Apache Flume incubator podling.]
> Reply-To: trademarks@apache.org
> Message-ID: <4E...@apache.org>
There are sadly a number of other threads that are relevant too :-(
If people are unhappy with the consequences of policy, please change
it. I'm just trying to document at least one way to satisfy it.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Jukka Zitting wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 23:47:38 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
> > something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
> > brand team.
>
> Was this a recommendation or a requirement? I.e. are we talking about
> MUST, SHOULD or MAY?
>
Thread:
https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/trademarks/201109.mbox/<4E...@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:37:33 +0100
To: trademarks@apache.org
Subject: Guidance For Podlings [WAS Re: Trademark questions with regards to
Apache Flume incubator podling.]
Reply-To: trademarks@apache.org
Message-ID: <4E...@apache.org>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:31:50 +0000:
>> Brand would be satisfied by - say - a profession trademark search
>
> [citation needed]
I'm not will to cite out of context. Please read all the archives.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 08:31:50 +0000:
> Brand would be satisfied by - say - a profession trademark search
[citation needed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
>> something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
>> brand team.
>
> Was this a recommendation or a requirement? I.e. are we talking about
> MUST, SHOULD or MAY?
Complicated :-/
It's the Incubator that insists on a "Suitable Name Search"
Brand would be satisfied by - say - a profession trademark search
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
> something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
> brand team.
Was this a recommendation or a requirement? I.e. are we talking about
MUST, SHOULD or MAY?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The status quo is that podlings must check that their name is suitable
>> before graduation.
>
> The wording of the incubator policy on this is to "check of project
> name for trademark issues" [1], which I think is fine.
AIUI it is essential that the Incubator avoids loaded legal terms.
Consensus was reached to use the neutral term "suitable name search"
for this task to avoid confusion with loaded legal terms (like
"checking for trademark issues").
So a "suitable name search" *must* be performed. Developers may well
colloquially like to think of this as "checking for trademark issues"
but the Incubator needs to avoid this term.
The documentation describes one way it can be done. In any case, the
name needs to be cleared by the brand team. The consensus was reached
that JIRA is the most reliable way to do this (brand has lost track of
emails in the past).
> The exact ways of checking this have so far ranged from "I haven't
> hread of other projects with similar names" to some googling around
> and finally to exhaustive trademark searches,
The term "trademark search" is a loaded legal term. The stuff we ask
podlings to do is better known amongst the legal community as a "kill
search".
Could anyone give an example of a project who has used the trained
legal professionals required to conduct an exhaustive trademark
search?
> all of which I think I
> think are reasonable ways to meet this graduation criteria, depending
> on how prominent or likely to encounter trademark trouble the project
> really is.
This is where I started too.
Branding are very keen to be able to use registration to protect
reputations (when necessary). This goes beyond merely probably
avoiding future trouble.
> Thus rather than presenting the proposed process as a MUST or SHOULD
> for podlings, I'd rather just having it as a guide that podlings MAY
> follow to in case they want to make sure that they'll have a good
> chance to defend their project name as a trademark should the need
> ever arise. Many projects never expect to find themselves in such a
> situation (and can deal with it in case they ever do), so I'd be fine
> with them using a less heavy-weight means to check their name "for
> trademark issues".
I thought along these lines when I set out on this journey. Talking to
our trademark team over a period of six months taught me otherwise.
This sort of judgment is often difficult even for trained trademark
attorneys. I think it unwise to expect developers with no legal
training to do any better.
>> Hopefully the document is reasonably clear that the process described
>> isn't the only way to get this done. Suggestions about clearer
>> phrasing welcomed.
>
> I'll see if I can come up with a patch with edits along the lines
> described above.
Please note that I didn't invent this process. I would have preferred
something much simpler. I just documented the recommendations of the
brand team. I did try to learn enough about US trademark law to
convince myself that the process seemed reasonable. And it is.
The process described isn't exactly fun but only takes four or five
hours. If this seems like an unreasonable burden then I strongly
recommend that the Incubator asks the board to provide professional
legal support.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll see if I can come up with a patch with edits along the lines
> described above.
See [1] for a proposed patch, and [2] for the output.
My idea is to collect the points about the rationale of the guide up
into the introduction section, and to mention that: "this guide is not
a strict requirement for all projects, just a recommended best
practice."
I also made it clearer that the best time to perform the search, if
possible, is when or before the project name is selected, not only
just right before graduation.
[1] http://people.apache.org/~jukka/names.patch
[2] http://people.apache.org/~jukka/names.html
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The status quo is that podlings must check that their name is suitable
> before graduation.
The wording of the incubator policy on this is to "check of project
name for trademark issues" [1], which I think is fine.
The exact ways of checking this have so far ranged from "I haven't
hread of other projects with similar names" to some googling around
and finally to exhaustive trademark searches, all of which I think I
think are reasonable ways to meet this graduation criteria, depending
on how prominent or likely to encounter trademark trouble the project
really is.
Thus rather than presenting the proposed process as a MUST or SHOULD
for podlings, I'd rather just having it as a guide that podlings MAY
follow to in case they want to make sure that they'll have a good
chance to defend their project name as a trademark should the need
ever arise. Many projects never expect to find themselves in such a
situation (and can deal with it in case they ever do), so I'd be fine
with them using a less heavy-weight means to check their name "for
trademark issues".
> Hopefully the document is reasonably clear that the process described
> isn't the only way to get this done. Suggestions about clearer
> phrasing welcomed.
I'll see if I can come up with a patch with edits along the lines
described above.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The new documentation describing in more detail one way to check the
>> suitability of the proposed name is just about ready for public review
>
> The URL is http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html
>
>> It's fine to just dive in to improve phrasing, add examples etc.
>> Here's a good place to ask questions. This thread is also a good place
>> to discuss content and dispute process details.
>
> The guide currently gives the impression that the initial name of a
> podling is just a "working name" and that a more "suitable name"
> should to be searched for and selected before graduation. Could we
> rather rephrase it as a guide on what to take in to account when
> coming up with a name in the first place?
This just documents how to perform the search we already require in a
way that's compatible with current thinking from our legal team about
trademark.
I'd be very happy for someone else to lead a change in policy in this area.
> Also, I'm a bit hesitant about the MUST in [1] that a "suitable name
> search must be completed before a podling can graduate". Was there a
> policy vote on this that I missed? The recent poll on this [2] didn't
> seem to reach any clear consensus.
Yes, there was no clear consensus on change from the current status
quo. This just updates the documentation for our current requirement
to match the current thinking from the legal team.
I'd be very happy for someone else to lead a change in policy in this area.
> A project community should obviously be reasonably certain that their
> name doesn't infringe on an external trademark.
It's important to avoid using loaded legal terms. Only counsel is
qualified to assess whether a mark is infringed or not. The podling
name search just records evidence of usage.
I'd be happy for someone else to lead a policy change in this area.
For example, a modest budget to allow professional trademark searches
would allow more legal certainty.
> The more careful they
> are with this (i.e. the more thorough name search they perform) the
> safer they are from trouble later on, but generally I'd leave it up to
> the podlings themselves to decide how much effort they really want to
> invest into this.
I'd be happy for someone else to lead a policy change in this area.
The status quo is that podlings must check that their name is suitable
before graduation.
Hopefully the document is reasonably clear that the process described
isn't the only way to get this done. Suggestions about clearer
phrasing welcomed.
> Thus, instead of setting strict rules and requirements, I think the
> guide should just document the best current practice and suggest why
> following it is a good idea.
I'd be happy for someone else to lead a policy change in this area.
The status quo is that podlings must check that their name is suitable
before graduation.
The responsiveness from the trademark team is slow (on the order of
months) and there is no budget for professional help. This document
describes the process recommended by the brand team to podlings who
asked on that list for assistance.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [names] Public Review
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The new documentation describing in more detail one way to check the
> suitability of the proposed name is just about ready for public review
The URL is http://incubator.apache.org/guides/names.html
> It's fine to just dive in to improve phrasing, add examples etc.
> Here's a good place to ask questions. This thread is also a good place
> to discuss content and dispute process details.
The guide currently gives the impression that the initial name of a
podling is just a "working name" and that a more "suitable name"
should to be searched for and selected before graduation. Could we
rather rephrase it as a guide on what to take in to account when
coming up with a name in the first place?
Also, I'm a bit hesitant about the MUST in [1] that a "suitable name
search must be completed before a podling can graduate". Was there a
policy vote on this that I missed? The recent poll on this [2] didn't
seem to reach any clear consensus.
A project community should obviously be reasonably certain that their
name doesn't infringe on an external trademark. The more careful they
are with this (i.e. the more thorough name search they perform) the
safer they are from trouble later on, but generally I'd leave it up to
the podlings themselves to decide how much effort they really want to
invest into this.
Thus, instead of setting strict rules and requirements, I think the
guide should just document the best current practice and suggest why
following it is a good idea.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH
[2] http://markmail.org/message/qix5ephxhfkzsfjd
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org