(Please note that this conversation is happening on general@, a publicly
archived list, so there is a limit to what level of details of brand
strategy I will engage in on this thread.)
To be brief:
- This issue should not gate a [VOTE] to begin incubation.
- Given both WSO2's history and the many Apache members involved in the
project, I'm confident the right thing will end up happening.
- The requirement is that the branding for a podling must be formally
donated to the ASF before it can graduate. We are happy to sign
agreements earlier or later; if we sign earlier we're happy to include
language such that any trademark assignment will revert to the original
owner if graduation fails for some reason.
- Unofficially (meaning: I've only spent 5 minutes reading this all so
far) I do *not* believe it would be tenable to have a future Apache
Stratos and a future WSO2 StratosLive. Many thanks in advance to
Sanjiva and company for being willing to change this!
- Shane
On 6/13/2013 6:21 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 13 June 2013 10:56, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
Ross, thanks for bringing this up! I'm happy to be a part of this
experiment.
On 13 June 2013 09:13, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote:
"Better" yes - "required" before we can vote - no. My reasoning is
that WSO2 have already agreed they will use a different name if VP
Branding requires it. In fact they won't have any choice since the
proposal clearly indicates the Stratos trademark will be assigned to
the ASF.
While owning the "Stratos" trademark would certainly put us in a position
of being able to ask WSO2 to stop using StratosLive. But there's no
guarantee that we would be successful.
That's true, but there is no change in that risk even if we give WSO2
an answer before the vote. What is more important (in my non-legal
opinion) is a publicly archived statement from the WSO2 CEO stating
they have no intention of abusing the Stratos mark that will be
donated to the ASF. We already have that.
It's only about the required order, not about the end game.
Note, it is normal practice for pre-existing marks to be formally
donated to the ASF during incubation, usually just before graduation.
The former owner does not (usually) want to assign a mark that may
become useless if the project does not graduate. Such graduation is
not wholly under the control of the trademark owner.
1. You need to be mindful of third-parties using your trademark in a
compound name.
This is already encoded in the ASF trademarks policies - WSO2 have
agreed to conform to those policies.
2. You need to apply branding rules consistently.
WSO2 have agreed to do so.
Sanjiva - perhaps you can edit the proposal to this effect in order to
help allay any fears. That is to include the statement you made
earlier:
"if StratosLive is too close to home we can certainly change it. Bit
painful but not impossible."
I don't want to hold up the vote for entry into the incubator on this
issue. At the same time I don't want VP Branding to be in a position
of having to come to a quick decision. We will have plenty of time
during incubation to resolve everything to our satisfaction.
Ultimately VP Branding will be able to object to graduation if the
issue has not been adequately addressed during incubation.
We allowed Couchbase (and
others) to share our brand because they were seen as "friendly" to the
community.
This is the root of why CouchDB has a problem today. I believe you a
projecting that problem and its cause onto a different issue here.
This is not about allowing WSO2 an exception to the existing policy.
It is about giving WSO2, the Stratos project community (which includes
you) and VP Branding time to work on a satisfactory solution *during*
incubation rather than prior to a vote. In my opinion WSO2 have
demonstrated they are willing to play by the rules.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
