Re: [IP Clearance] Clearance for IBM Query Parser Software Grant
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Grant Ingersollgsing...@apache.org wrote: On Jul 21, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Grant Ingersollgsing...@apache.org wrote: Please review and provide lazy consensus for IBM's Query Parser Software Grant at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/lucene-query-parser.xml there seem to be a number of june dates (eg 2009-06-16) are these typos? (or has it just taken a while...?) It has taken a while... I tried to keep track of things as I did them. cool looks fine to me - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark?? On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement for the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code. I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that it says: The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products widely and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how and software), will be strictly done: * in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing Know-how and its licenses; or * to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be integrated as an optional component. The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties outside of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have contributed code. In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think differently. Ross -- Ross Gardler OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Hi, 2009/7/22 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com: Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark?? Ahem, ITYM Apache Wookie ;-) Flipancy aside, I'm fine with it ... the Lucasfilm mark is wookiee, and there doesn't appear to be anything other than a friendly Debian hacker named wookie. I doubt he'd mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wookie Andrew. -- asav...@apache.org / cont...@andrewsavory.com http://www.andrewsavory.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
2009/7/22 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com: Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark?? I have done trademark searches in the UK and the US. In the US there are three dead trademarks: WOOKIES for Flavored nuts, shelled nuts, roasted nuts; processed nuts; snack mix consisting primarily of processed nuts COOKIE WOOKIE for Restaurant and canteen services WOOKIE for TOY ACTION FIGURES WOOKIES (nuts) also exists in the UK There are no other references. I therefore had no concerns about the name from a trademark perspective. Were you asking to check or do you have a concern? Ross On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement for the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code. I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that it says: The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products widely and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how and software), will be strictly done: * in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing Know-how and its licenses; or * to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be integrated as an optional component. The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties outside of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have contributed code. In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think differently. Ross -- Ross Gardler OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Ross Gardler OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
Jim Jagielski wrote: Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark?? How is incubator PMC to evaluate this question? Apparently the submitters are cool with it, or it would not be on their proposal :) The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a query such as; http://www.google.com/search?q=wookie+download and be lost in the approx 135k results :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
2009/7/22 William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net: Jim Jagielski wrote: Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark?? ... The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a query such as; http://www.google.com/search?q=wookie+download and be lost in the approx 135k results :) We'll be topping that list without too much effort, the number one result has a page rank of 1. So I'm still comfortable with it;-) Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Wookie IP clearance
On 22 Jul 2009, at 20:31, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: The one thing that might be concerning is that most people will use a query such as; http://www.google.com/search?q=wookie+download and be lost in the approx 135k results :) Not quite as bad on that score as the River or Click or Ace projects I imagine... besides, it also sort of fits alongside Droids and Empire ;-) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Wookie IP clearance
I was going to propose that whatever the next project approved for the incubator is that it should be required to be named Foo. Ralph On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Are we cool with the name 'wookie' as a mark?? On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: In the wookie proposal I recommended that the consortium agreement for the donating project be examined to ensure that none of the other institutions can lay claim to any IP in the code. I now have a copy of the consortium agreement and can confirm that it says: The Parties agree to disseminate and distribute their products widely and for free using OSI certified Open Source licenses and Creative Common licenses. To avoid a conflict of interests between Open Source and Proprietary Approaches any use of Pre-existing Know-How (know-how and software), will be strictly done: * in good faith that it will not prevent the creation of a final system which can work without being depending on the Pre-existing Know-how and its licenses; or * to explore as a test case on how Pre-existing Know-how can be integrated as an optional component. The project team have confirmed verbally that no third parties outside of this agreement have contributed to the code base, I am in the process of confirming that no third parties inside the agreement have contributed code. In my opinion this is sufficient for the ASF to accept this contribution (once (i)CLAs are in place). Speak up if you think differently. Ross -- Ross Gardler OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
