On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:07 +0100, "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 01:35, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson from his > >> google.com address. I imagine that if Google had a problem with it, > >> then he wouldn't be working there tomorrow :-D ... or if this was some > >> kind of spurious one-guy-goes-batshit-crazy, then how could he line up > >> so many people? > >> > >> And sure, while you couldn't know this, Dan is a great guy. I worked > >> with him while at Google. This proposal is straight-up. > >> > >> My simple point is: please accept proposals at face value rather than > >> pushing back with paranoid thoughts about malfeasance on the part of > >> the people wanting to join our efforts here at the ASF. > > > > Yet, we have in the past had similar situations, where we have not > > allowed this kind of position. In the end, you are now encouraging > > that Apache WAVE, Google WAVE and Niclas WAVE are totally fine, > > possibly not the same thing. > > LucidImagination is told that "LucidWorks for Lucene" is a proper > > 'association' back to the Apache project. Shouldn't they (in the same > > spirit) then be allowed "Lucid Lucene" as well? > > Didn't we require Yahoo TrafficServer to assign trademark, or we would > > change the name? > > Doug Cutting assign trademark to Lucene? > > > > Although I agree with you, Greg, that if Google has a problem, this is > > likely not happening. My point is the reverse; If we allow "Google > > Wave", "Niclas Wave" and so forth, we need to allow this for the > > Lucenes, Hadoops and TrafficServers as well, otherwise 5 years down > > the line, you need to go researching each and every projects history > > to figure out how derived products may call themselves. I think it > > severely complicates Trademark policies and blurs our definitions. > > > > > > -1 to the proposal as it stands with this name and 'Google retains the > > trademark "Google Wave"' > > In general I agree with Niclas. This clause should be removed. > > I seem to recall podlings where the donating company was required to > transfer trademarks, but don't remember exactly which podling/project > it was. > > I wouldn't stop the proposal, though. This can be identified as an > issue to be solved in Incubation - either by changing the name away > from 'Wave' or by transferring marks or even by determining that none > of both is required.
My understanding is that Google claim a trademark on the "Google Wave" term, but no such trademark on "Wave". There are other "Waves", and that Google is quite happy with alternative "Waves", such as "Apache Wave". Personally, I don't see any problem with this at all, given the fact that "Wave" if anything is a term attributed to the protocol itself, rather than any one implementation. Google Wave is just one implementation of the 'wave protocol', just as is (or would be) Apache Wave. If there were some kind of greater reassurance we could gain from Google, maybe that would soothe folk's anxieties, but I don't have an issue with the name in itself. Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
