Craig.Russell wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>>> Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw
>>> Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name
>>> collision with the old Sun codename
>> Only because I hadn't seen Craig's e-mail fi
On Aug 13, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw
Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name
collision with the old Sun codename
Only because I hadn't seen Craig's e-mail first
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw
> Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name
> collision with the old Sun codename
Only because I hadn't seen Craig's e-mail first. :-) But I believe that we
have ended up with a be
Subject: RE: Blaze and Openness
of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Please respond to
On 04/08/06, Larry Cable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If "Apache" is acceptable for the name of this organization then
I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate
regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not.
I don't believe that it is. I cer
|
| cc:
|
|
If "Apache" is acceptable for the name of this organization then
I see no reason to waste anyone else's time on a rather pointless debate
regarding the appropriateness of naming this project 'Glasgow' or not.
FYI, as a point of historical interest (and it's not that interesting),
purely as a 'com
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Bla
http://www.glasgowsoftware.co.uk/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30/07/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
Cliff, yes I do.
As you may have seen from previous posts I've only just been catching
up with this.
My concern is that it is not appropriate for the incubator to continue
to condon
On 28/07/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It does seem pretty strange to be naming software after a city, though.
Apache Tokyo, anyone? Apache New York?
I agree, it is ludicrous.
Why is the incubator so fixated on misappropriating proper names?
But if you have to pick a Scottis
Just as I was posting the vote thread for the Glasgow project, I saw
Noel had updated the new wiki page with a concern about the name
collision with the old Sun codename for their JavaBeans Activiation
Framework (see
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GlasgowProposal?action=diff&rev2=2&rev1=1).
I
That is acceptable, and very reasonable, thank you
Carl.
Brian McCallister wrote:
I'm quite happy to have it come to a vote, but I would like to see the
specification issue laid to rest before graduation :-)
-Brian
On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Brian,
As the Champion f
I'm quite happy to have it come to a vote, but I would like to see
the specification issue laid to rest before graduation :-)
-Brian
On Aug 2, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Brian,
As the Champion for this proposal, I'd like to move this on to a vote.
I just read all the related po
Brian,
As the Champion for this proposal, I'd like to move this on to a vote.
I just read all the related posts one more time, and I believe your
concern below is the only one that hasn't been directly addressed (if
I'm wrong about this, someone speak up). So, I want to offer my
thoughts on it a
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 21:18 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > Umm, I don't think so. As a TAG member, I encountered many discussions
> > that were in members-only areas, and they are still going on (XML
> > Schema,
> > for example). The TAG would refuse to participate in any such
> > discussion
On 8/1/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>> Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private
>> channels,
>> that said we are in
>> the process
On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Brian,
Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private
channels,
that said we are in
the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and
feedback lists
Brian McCallister wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Brian,
Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private
channels, that said we are in
the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and
feedback lists for anyone to
read, access and intera
FWIW, OASIS *public* email archives are available here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/
-- dims
On 8/1/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks,
Noted, I have been involved more with OASIS in recent years.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Tri
Thanks,
Noted, I have been involved more with OASIS in recent years.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Brian,
Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels,
that said we are in
the process of creating public pages,
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 12:36 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels,
> that said we are in
> the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and
> feedback lists for anyone to
> read, access and interact with t
Brian McCallister wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could
continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec,
itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF?
If something were
On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Could you clarify whether you are asking if the Glasgow project could
continue in a different direction from the spec, or whether the spec,
itself, could be changed/forked and distributed by the ASF?
If something were to happen to cause develo
On 8/1/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, the question from my email before last is still unanswered: can
the spec be forked if the process becomes an insurmountable obstacle
for the Glasgow project? I realize this is really based on the terms
in the license, but not being a l
On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Brian,
Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private
channels, that said we are in
the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and
feedback lists for anyone to
read, access and interact with the working grou
Brian,
Just as in JCP, OASIS or W3C the real work happens on private channels,
that said we are in
the process of creating public pages, from which to link user and
feedback lists for anyone to
read, access and interact with the working group.
Thanks for the feedback
Carl.
Brian McCallister
On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
The current working group is open to new members and is eager for
feedback from anyone.
Where are the archives of the discussions that have gotten it this
far so I can understand what is driving the process and be able to
contribute? What mai
James,
Anything that the Working group publishes / works on will be under the
license already
disclosed. As to TCK, there is a little bit of work in this area in the
spec but it does not meet a
definition of a TCK. The discussion is still ongoing as to what should
the TCK
look like. Many of t
On 7/30/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
I'd also like commitment from the folks-behind-the-closed-doors that
any AMQP TCK will be freely available for Apache to use (maybe only
for those who sign the necessary NDAs like whe
Brian McCallister wrote:
If the goal is to create a standard protocol for messaging stuff, this
requires a lot of buy in from a wide range of parties. Keeping the
protocol behind closed doors and with a mysterious future sabotages
this. Transparency is, I believe, a major requirement for
accom
On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
- There was also the question about how the AMQP specification will be
handled and licensed. I started this thread with my feelings about
that aspect (short version: it looks better
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
- I think Glasgow is fine since it appears not to conflict with any
registered software marks. I don't think we need to be worried about
the university reference, and we obviously have several projects
already named for cities. I'm also
On 7/27/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It does seem pretty strange to be naming software after a city, though.
Apache Tokyo, anyone? Apache New York? But if you have to pick a Scottish
city to name it after, I'd recommend Edinburgh - it's a much nicer city
anyway. ;-)
Yeah, why ca
On Friday 28 July 2006 11:48, Martin Cooper wrote:
> That _is_ the first thing I think of in relation to Glasgow
Me too...
Does that mean we have been around too long and should plan retirement ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
-
To unsubscr
On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Martin,
For just a moment, I thought you were serious.
I was. That _is_ the first thing I think of in relation to Glasgow and
software. Just because it's not the latest technology doesn't make me forget
the association. ;-)
It does s
Hi Martin,
For just a moment, I thought you were serious.
JavaBeans Activation Framework, 1999.
JavaBeans Drag and Drop, 1998.
If Glasgow were really a software name to be worried about, I think
we might have heard more of it in the last 6 years...
Craig
On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Martin
I think of no associations with software projects when hearing Glasgow.
Craig
On Jul 27, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 7/27/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Garrett
>
> Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As
On 7/27/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Garrett
>
> Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the
> university name, "Glasgow Haskell"
> it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department ha
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett
Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the
university name, "Glasgow Haskell"
it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has
conducted a trademark search of
the word "Glasgow" and come up
Garrett
Some of us spoke about this at lunch. As Glasgow is part of the
university name, "Glasgow Haskell"
it should not present a conflict. In addition, our legal department has
conducted a trademark search of
the word "Glasgow" and come up with no software-related registrations.
Regards
Ca
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name
that is free of any trademarks in the software space. ( not that easy)
The new name for Blaze is Glasgow.
I will update the wiki.
How about the Glasgow Haskell Compiler?
On 7/27/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name
that is free of any trademarks in the software space.
great
( not that easy)
not easy at all :-)
thanks
- robert
-
After debate, and many trademark searches we have selected new name
that is free of any trademarks in the software space. ( not that easy)
The new name for Blaze is Glasgow.
I will update the wiki.
Regards
Carl.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Naming of Blaze,
Based on all the feedback provided, and
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 13:25, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Adding "Apache" to the name does not change
> anything, for the same reason that we cannot release "Apache Windows".
How about using "MacroHard Doors" ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
-
Naming of Blaze,
Based on all the feedback provided, and after doing a trademark
search, there are 14 trademarks( class 9) around blaze, some in the software
space and none in this domain. As suggested by someone on this thread
I would like to raise the bar and rename the project. We will look f
Thank you for all the feedback, would it be possible to post a link to this
"at least one registered for web software" as mentioned by someone in the
thread. This would be helpful to me.
Kind regards,
Carl.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 22:25 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> The rule at Apache is that, unless we have prior use, avoid a name
> that is already registered. Whether or not someone else did the
> homework
> for Synapse is another matter that will likely be brought up with that
> project before
On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am
not trying
to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does
Apache deals with this.
If a trademark appears to be infringed, the project and all of its
releas
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had read Roys comment to be that there they where not used in software
in the related domain. I may have read more into the statement than I
I think you misunderstood Roy's comment. Let me re-paste his comment
as I think you are confusin
Hi Carl,
On Jul 24, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am
not trying
to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does
Apache deals with this.
The way Apache "deals with this" is that you get advice from lo
I am missing something...Is there a product that they sell named
Synapse? I can't find it.
-- dims
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not
trying
to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does A
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not
trying
to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache
deals with this.
apache believes that continuous improvement is more important than
consist
The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not
trying
to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache
deals with this.
Maybe we should use Synapse as the comp project to understand as it is
quite a
recent project, and this link
http://www.synaps
Carl Trieloff wrote:
...
> Here are some examples for Derby.
Derby is a relational database implemented entirely in java, which
entered the Apache Incubator in August 2004. With those points in mind
1) This looks like Cub Scout race management software and the most
recent date on the web si
Thanks, see the other mail I just posted.
Carl.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Roy,
This would be consistent "at least not within the software category"
with the proposed name also, so
what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the
status-quo in Apache.
Please could you post the links to the ones that concern you.
I had read Roys comment to be that there they where not used in software
in the related domain. I may have read more into the statement than I
should
have - if I did - sorry. If the measure is "use in software" then the
following
st
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Roy,
This would be consistent "at least not within the software category"
with the proposed name also, so
what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the
status-quo in Apache.
Carl, it's "the software category" of patents, not "this software category".
T
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This would be consistent "at least not within the software category"
with the proposed name also, so
what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the
status-quo in Apache.
Roy explicitly pointed out that Blaze was a registered
Roy,
This would be consistent "at least not within the software category"
with the proposed name also, so
what I am pointing out is just that we are consistent with the
status-quo in Apache.
Regards
Carl.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
If you sea
On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
If you search many of the Apache project names, they are
trademarked to gezoo,
No they aren't, at least not within the software category.
Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 7/21/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quick question on trademarks.
If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to
gezoo, however
if you search "Apache XXX" it cleans up. Once/one day when the project
graduates from
Incubator it will also be "Apache XXX"
Quick question on trademarks.
If you search many of the Apache project names, they are trademarked to
gezoo, however
if you search "Apache XXX" it cleans up. Once/one day when the project
graduates from
Incubator it will also be "Apache XXX" which is unique.
How is this different from any of
On 7/20/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project
can cause a previously closed "standard" to be forced into the open
or be supplanted.
+1
In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks
in the USPTO with 3
OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project
can cause a previously closed "standard" to be forced into the open
or be supplanted.
In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks
in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least
one registered
On 7/20/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If anyone has actually read this far,
i have
thanks for indulging my thoughts
on this.
and thanks for taking the time to draft such a comprehensive analysis of the
space
- robert
On 7/19/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was assuming that standard bodies dictate the license to a large
extent, and given that those have caused trouble in the past the idea
of a new project with that still undefined is a worry. The term
"standards body" is a mental flag :)
I ask
67 matches
Mail list logo
