On Sunday, 12 October 2014, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote:
> Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > >> On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Well said... >>>>> I guess it is all about the order of the words: Maven X Plugin. It >>>>> simply >>>>> implies that is provided by the Maven team. Which is not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> But is the order relevant in the artifactId or in the public display >>>> name? I think it's simpler to convince plugin maintainers to change >>>> the public display name ( Maven X Plugin -> X Plugin for Maven ) >>>> rather than the artifactId. >>>> >>>> >>> I do not hang on the specific order, a correct display name should >>> suffices but Stephen was pretty obvious about trademark violation. >>> >> >> >> Look, if we - as the PMC - want to open things up and allow other usages, >> that's fine by me. We should run it by trademarks@a.o and if they are >> fine >> with us opening the scope more then we put it to a vote and decide. >> >> Right now, what I recall, is we only voted "___ maven plugin" as the form >> of use that we allowed for our mark. >> >> Projects own their marks, and are allowed to grant usage forms that they >> decide to grant. So far we have only granted one from, we can grant >> others, >> but it would need to be a conscious decision. >> > > I do not think that the display name is a real problem but just the > artifact id name pattern. Restriction has been made by the PMC and not by > trademarks@a.o, right? It's actually the other way. The mark has to be protected and the PMC can say that certain allowed usage patterns will be permitted. So if the PMC ha done nothing then we'd have to issue C&Ds to anything that has maven in it and is related to our build tool in any way. We have said, if it is a plugin for maven, we will allow the usage of our mark provided you use the form "___ maven plugin" Artifact is vs display name? I don't see a difference. Lots of people call plugins by their artifact id... If we don't protect our mark it ceases to be a mark... Now we *could* go to the board and say: "we would like to release our mark is that ok" and see what answer we get, but seriously, what do we gain? >From my PoV, let's just turn on enforcement for people building maven plugins... If there is an outcry then we can vote to allow the other form of usage and roll another release > The question is, does the PMC insist on that pattern even if, as Benson > has mentioned, the group id is different? You must defend your mark. One of our marks is "maven" in connection with build toolchains. Group is irrelevant. > > Michael > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- Sent from my phone
