On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:21:02 -0500 Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/13/15 9:27 AM: > > A key point here is: would other organizations be interested in having > their employees contribute to the project? Or would other organizations > likely see that your company effectively held the controlling interest > in the new Apache project? We tried to make clear in the proposal that a major motivation for coming to Apache is precisely that the project is taking on board a second corporate team (NTT). I understand there are further prospects. > Project independence is about ensuring an Apache project can attract new > contributors from all sources - both individual as well as corporate, > even from corporations who are otherwise competitors with each other. > (Note: corporations don't directly contribute, only individuals do, but > a lot of work is done by software vendor employees). Which is exactly where we are with OpenMiracl. Or whatever else it might be branded. Since it was my suggestion that OpenMiracl would provide sufficient distinction, can I ask whether there have in fact been cases where a project name being related to a company's mark has really deterred prospective contributors? I understand that it could get confusing if there are separate but incompatible products (perhaps something to address in the Risks section of the proposal?) but you seem to be making a stronger claim than that. OpenOffice is clear and distinctive, despite an altogether more complex situation of a name sharing a root with both related and unrelated projects! -- Nick Kew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
