1. Initial Reaction ============= I understand that you need to set the rules, so I'm not against the trademark stuff in principle, but I'm a bit upset at how this came about to be - Especially the fact that I was pretty much just told to change the name of the Perl binding without any forewarning.
As for the perl binding name, it's very uncommon for perl bindings to have a Perl- prefix as suggested in the trademark page. In this (perl) culture having such a prefix looks extremely lame. Also, I think the wording on the trademark page looks hostile. That's part why I'm being pissy - I felt like I was threatened. As discussed separately in IRC, something like the Debian trademark ( http://www.debian.org/trademark ) would have made me feel little more secure about it. 2. In Search Of A Compromise ======================= Now having expressed my pissy reaction, let me try to be a bit more constructive... If you insist on the package changing its name, fine. The owners have the final say, so I'll comply. But for the perl binding I at least need a good alternative name suggestion. Perl culture doesn't use the "Perl" prefix. If you want to put a prefix, either a package/software name or term that describes the module's nature is used: e.g. Net::SNMP, Test::Exception, etc. I really don't have a good candidate for zeromq. Net::ZeroMQ? Yeah, sure it's network related, but it feels weird. ZeroMQ is ZeroMQ... that's why the previous owner ( who started the perl binding ) named it so. 3. Concerns ========= The other side effect of a rename is that I'd have to tell all of my users (which, I don't know how many there are, so it might or might not be a significant number) to switch the module name. Granted, it's just a simple search/replace, but it's a hassle that I'd have to impose on them nonetheless. I personally don't feel like it's worth it at this point. 4. Summary ========= * I understand you need to have a guideline. * If you really insist, the name for the perl binding can be changed. * I currently don't have a good alternative name. * I personally don't feel the naming is worth the trouble. * The wording on that trademark page looks very hostile. Can you please adjust the wording on that trademark page so that it's more relaxed? So yeah, I understand why this is necessary, and I'm not against the principle. But I don't like how it's handled, I don't like how it's worded, and I don't think forcing a rename on a binding is worth it. An please next time, send me a friendly warning before filing an issue? I'm usually not this pissy, and I usually just comply with such guidelines (I'm an obedient Japanese guy, remember?) Regards, --d 2011/5/12 Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com>: > Hi all, > > I've written down a provisional policy for use of the 0MQ-related > trademarks, here: http://www.imatix.com/trademark-policy > > The intention is to prevent confusion from other products that call > themselves "zeromq" and prevent forks that live outside the 0MQ > community. > > Please discuss, if this is an aspect you care about. > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
