On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 00:35 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 01:33 +0000, Nick Kew wrote: > > > I should like to propose that we consider OpenMiracl for incubation. > > > > This proposal is now at > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenMiraclProposal > > > > "As soon as OpenMiracl is accepted into the Incubator, Certivox (now > MIRACL) will transfer the source code and trademark to the ASF with a > Software Grant, and licensed under the Apache License 2.0. Certivox/MIRACL > retains rights to its existing MIRACL mark."
> The above isn't clear, saying the trademark will be transferred to the ASF > and "Certivox/MIRACL retains rights to its existing MIRACL mark". What > trademark is being transferred to the ASF? I think we're dealing with the right to use/defend the mark (as I understand ASF does with most of its project names) rather than any existing registered mark. The distinction between MIRACL and OpenMiracl seems the crucial one. I believe the Open- prefix is reasonably widespread and recognised in making this kind of distinction. Though in this instance where both are Open Source, the reference is to Open Development. > The ASF project called OpenMiracl and Certivox/MIRACL continuing to use the > MIRACL mark would seem to muddy the water between the two. Would this not > disadvantage others building something based on OpenMiracl? Isn't it the same distinction as Mesos vs Mesosphere? I haven't been party to discussions with all the other companies involved (including those running or intending to run a TA and listed in the proposal), but I understand they're happy with it. -- Nick Kew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
