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
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
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 first. :-)
In
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 condone
http://www.glasgowsoftware.co.uk/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
:
|
| Subject: Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal]
Blaze
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
:12 Subject: RE: Blaze and Openness
of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Please respond to
general
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=diffrev2=2rev1=1).
I
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,
which
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
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
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 when
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 of creating
On Jul 29, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Does anyone have any further concerns about this proposal?
snip /
- 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
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
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
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 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
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?
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
Carl.
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 with
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 has
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 Glasgow
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,
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
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
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
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
-
To
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
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
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.
The
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 7/21/06, 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
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 7/19/06, 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 asked
On 7/20/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
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
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, 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 329
56 matches
Mail list logo
