incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2016 05:24:57 GMT
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:02 AM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 8/1/16, 6:52 PM, "Christopher" <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >> My recommendation is that fluo.io be donated to the ASF and a new
> domain
> >> name chosen for the non-ASF community backed site.
> >>
> >
> >We'll need to discuss this further, but I think our preferred option is
> >going to be (in order of preference):
> >
> >1. Get approval from TM about continued use of the fluo.io domain as an
> >unaffiliated community site.
> >2. Choose a new name for the podling project.
> >3. Your recommendation above.
>
> From the peanut gallery:
>
> My understanding is that there are "strong" marks and "weak(er)" marks,
> that, AIUI, is related to how much usage of the TM is already out there,
> how many were actually approved, and to what degree un-approved mark usage
> was pursued by the mark holder.
>
> Flex, for example, is a "weaker" mark.  When Adobe donated the Flex TM to
> Apache, there were dozens of domains with 'flex' in it both related to
> Adobe Flex and other things like cars, delivery services, even other
> software like lexers.  I'm pretty sure neither Apache nor Adobe went
> around to all of the flex domains related to Apache Flex and made them get
> permission to continue using their domain name, but Adobe did redirect
> flex.org to Apache (although I just noticed it isn't responding).  AIUI,
> if we find out that someone is using flex.biz, flex.us, or any other
> flex.* domain, even if they are helping to promote Apache Flex, we are
> supposed to ask them to use something else.  But I believe there is more
> flexibility around using flex as part of the domain name.
>
> So, IMO, I will be surprised if fluo.io gets approved for non-ASF usage.
> I think, though, that fluo.io could redirect to a page on the podling site
> that explains that why fluo.io doesn't do what it used to do, and even
> have a link to what was at fluo.io but with a new domain name, maybe
> fluo-tools or tools-for-fluo.io.  AIUI, you can link to web sites that
> aren't under ASF-friendly licensing as long as there are disclaimers on
> your page.
>
> HTH (but of course, I could be wrong),
> -Alex
>
>
The nuance with fluo.io is that it never represented itself as, say, "Fluo
in the .io top-level domain", for example. Rather, it has always been "
fluo.io" or "fluo-io". Just "fluo" has always been a subset of what is in
the "fluo.io" domain. So, it's somewhat like how "bit.ly" represents the
"bitly" entity. If "bitly" developed a product called "bit", and donated it
to Apache as "Apache Bit", nobody would suggest "bit.ly" is now infringing.
Granted, this case wouldn't be as clear as that, because "bitly" is a
well-established corporate entity, but "fluo.io" is just a small organized
group of projects/tools related to Fluo. But, it's how I see it: "fluo.io"
is not the same as "the domain for fluo". Changing to something like
"fluo-tools.whatever" might be suitable as an alternative, but from my
perspective, that's what "fluo.io" already is. We'll see what TM has to say.

Note: if all of the projects under fluo.io were suitable for a home in ASF,
we'd have been more than happy moving them all over and donating the
domain. The fact that some of its projects are inherently unsuitable (GPL
dependencies, repos with no intention to ever release, etc.) motivate me to
want to keep them separate.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message