Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90> is an example.
The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles. A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector. http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/ <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/>. Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other alternatives before consulting lawyers. Julian > On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <mar...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com > <mailto:jacq...@dremio.com>> wrote: > Ok guys, > > I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a > quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue with > conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second phase vote. > > I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise? > > Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last time > around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of weeding > out the potential trademark violations. > > Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well? > > > Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference) > > Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search > starting with the top one. > > Link again: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1 > > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1> > > thanks > > > -- > Jacques Nadeau > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com > <mailto:jacq...@dremio.com>> wrote: > Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since there > was a three-way tie for ninth place): > > Vector > Arrow > honeycomb > Herringbone > joist > V2 > Piet > colbuf > baton > impulse > victor > > Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether we're > likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532 > > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532> > > Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts? > > > > -- > Jacques Nadeau > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com > <mailto:jacq...@dremio.com>> wrote: > Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10. > > 10 is most preferred > > > > -- > Jacques Nadeau > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com > <mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Single vote for most preferred? > > Single transferable vote? > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com > <mailto:jacq...@dremio.com>> wrote: > Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take that as > tacit agreement to the proposed process. > > Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for everybody's > votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday. > > thanks! > Jacques > > > > -- > Jacques Nadeau > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org > <mailto:jacq...@apache.org>> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector proposal > before the board would like to consider it. The main point of contention > right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name and get > it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH. > > Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for > selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and > > We do the naming in the following steps > - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered > - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10 options > 1..10 > - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of whether we > think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have this until > we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names > - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their top 3 > names > - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't work, > try the second and third options. > > I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then > constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could just do > this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is better > in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for that but > I'm not sure a better place exists. > > I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others think. Just > wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process. > > If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1. > > Thanks, > Jacques > > [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted Dunning, > Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques Nadeau, > James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel Kornacker, > Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David Alves, > Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin. > [2] > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0 > > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0> > > > > > >
