> > > I believe it'd be good to talk with Legal and/or Trademark early on to > get > > an opinion on a few things and then later put a prominent note on that on > > our website. > > It reasonably straight forward I think, as long as 3rd parties respect the > Apache license, brand and it’s trademarks all is good. For instance [2] > > There may need to be a discussion around how do we license non code stuff > as the ALv2 was only written with software in mind. We also need to take > care including stuff that under other licenses, for instance a lot of > content is under creative common licenses and that may or may not be > compatible with the apache license. [1] >
Good points. And I agree, the current rules probably cover most of it but I believe it doesn't hurt to be proactive here and just talk about the issues we foresee. And you raised one of them. > > > How exactly can we do that and especially how can we market it and refer > to it? > > As long as there’s no confusion with users that the compony is > representing the ASF or the ASF project in question, again all is good. [3] > > > Someone else talked about "certifications" in the VOTE thread. I put them > > as "out of scope" in the Proposal but that doesn't mean it can't change. > > This has come up a couple of of time at the board level and from memory > it's been something the ASF don’t want to do, that doesn’t mean we can’t > bring it up again. > I assumed as much, hence I left it out in the proposal but since it was raised during VOTE I assume it'll come up again. So I'd raise this as well. I see all of his as content for a FAQ page on our website. Cheers, Lars > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa > 2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#books > 3. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#notes
