On Apr 20, 2007, at 20:06, Eric Saxe wrote: > I'll fork this thread.... > > Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On Apr 20, 2007, at 19:25, Eric Saxe wrote: >> >>> Thanks for cc'ing me... >>> I guess my project proposal has become somewhat of a case study? :) >> >> Sorry that's happening but I think we're all learning a lot! > > That ok. > >>> >>> Again, I think i'm missing context. Is there a trademark issue? >>> If so, is there a process that proposers >>> of projects are supposed to (or should) go through to ensure a >>> project's name is "good"? >> >> The problem is that to find out if there /is/ a trademark issue >> costs a non-trivial sum of money that we don't have. We should >> assume there might be a trademark issue whenever we use a >> decorative name. That's why it's better for us to use descriptive >> names unless there is an exceptional circumstance and there is a >> sponsor involved who can pay for legal review. Are both of these >> the case here? > > Not that I know of? :) > By "we" and "us" do you mean Sun, the OpenSolaris community or both?
Sun will carry the can if there's a legal incident. The community needs to act responsibly whoever picks up the tab. So both. As I pointed out to Keith, I am speaking as a community member at present, based on wrestling with this issue in multiple previous activities. > Is the issue with the code name (Tesla), or the "Enhanced Power > Management" part, or both? I'm interpreting what you said > to guess the latter. Is that right? If "Enhanced Power Management" describes what the software does it is unlikely to be a trademark issue to describe it with that name. Unless the code directly relates to Nikola Tesla or things named after him so that it's descriptive use, it's the "Tesla" that's a problem. It may be the case that is infringes trademark law somewhere in a way that exposes the community and its host to risk. We can't know the scale of the risk without paying a lawyer (and we actually have to pay money even if a Sun lawyer does it since a per-use resource is involved). Thus, even knowing there is no problem would cost money. > >>>>>> * Including "Solaris" or "OpenSolaris" in the name is >>>>>> redundant since >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ditto. >>>> >>> Maybe in the context of opensolaris.org it's redundant. But where >>> the project name is raised in a broader context >>> (like "an open source project"), expressing that the work is >>> destined for OpenSolaris seems useful. >> >> Unfortunately, since Sun in its wisdom set this community up with >> a trademark in its name, Sun will have to abide by US trademark >> law and enforce licensing and minimum quality standards over that >> trademark. Thus, the example you describe is exactly the sort of >> circumstance in which it's better not to use the word "OpenSolaris". > > ...better not to use the word "OpenSolaris" *in* the project name, > you mean? Again, is this a Sun issue, community issue, or both? Well, it's an issue for the community since we don't want to provoke our friend Sun into being forced by law to take action against us or our other friends in other communities. Pretending as Keith does that because the law is distasteful we can ignore it will not help us. S.
