On Sunday, October 12, 2014, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like the way Mojo makes common sense explicit without trademark drama: > > http://mojo.codehaus.org/development/guidelines.html > > - Use the <plugin>-maven-plugin convention for the artifactId of any > developed > Maven plugin. > > - Use the [Project] Maven Plugin convention to name your plugin e.g. "Acme > Maven Plugin", unless [Project] reflects a trademark. In such case use > either > "Mojo's Acme Maven Plugin" or "Mojo's Maven Plugin for Acme" to clarify it > is > a plugin for this product and not by this product. > > That was the result of the great bind I found myself in trying to comply with the trade mark issues for "Mojo's Apache Cassandra plugin for Apache Maven" (or whatever dancing games I ended up with) So you'll not see a disagreement from me on mojo's practices ;-) > > like Michael said, with the same common sense: > "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." > > > what about artifact id? > if artifactId=maven-[project]-plugin, how can anybody expect that the name > or > description will be "[Project] Maven Plugin"? > Common sense implies artifactId and name+description will use the same > order Yep my pov too > > > Then IMHO, making maven-plugin-plugin enforce the artifact id is > sufficient to > help plugin owners discover that they are in wrong situation from a common > sense perspective: no doubt they will be interested in improving their > explanations to their users. > > > And should we make core or enforcer check this? > I'm not a fan: the plugin owner is in wrong situation, not the plugin user. Exactly > > Of course, if the plugin owner can't understand common sense, we can add a > warning in core to help him understand the issue when his users will report > him the warning, before we take it at trademark level: yes, we'll take it > the > hard/trademark way if the easy/common sense way can't make it. > > > that's the way I feel it. > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le dimanche 12 octobre 2014 09:43:08 Stephen Connolly a écrit : > > On Sunday, 12 October 2014, Michael Osipov <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Am 2014-10-12 um 00:30 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > >> On Saturday, 11 October 2014, Michael Osipov <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> Am 2014-10-11 um 21:28 schrieb Robert Munteanu: > > >>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Michael Osipov < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > >>> > > >>>> 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 [email protected] 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 > > > [email protected], 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: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > -- Sent from my phone
