Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >> I think that instead of spinning on this lock, we should move forward >> with some other name to get things booted, and then resolve the Jini >> name issue in parallel. > > I don't know that the name is an issue at all, if Sun is willing to transfer > the trademark to the ASF, as was done with SpamAssassin. The impression > that I have from Craig and others is that this is do-able. According to > Simon, this is something that a Sun contact can work on, and according to > Jim Hurley, "We would prefer to contribute it, but I'd like some discussion > on this list on whether that's a viable option." The answer, Jim, is yes. > We did the same with the SpamAssassin trademark.
Because there is a difference. JINI is a "technology domain". SpamAssassin is a project. > > Between that and Craig's observations regarding the JDO precedent, it begs > the question of why we should not go forward with the JINI name, which is > what Sun, itself, is offering, and which is the name with which people > associate. If we eventually find that we must change the name, which it > seems we would all like to avoid, we can do so later. I'd rather go forward with a neutral project name, and then work out the implications of managing a trademark that we'd have to allow others to use. geir --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
