incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:36:35 GMT
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:22 PM Craig Russell <>

> Hi Christopher,
> > On Aug 1, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
> >
> > Why would this be a concern for, but not sites like
> > or which
> are
> > related to the ASF project, but clearly not owned or controlled by ASF?
> Or
> > even The last one has a disclaimer about who
> owns
> > the "Maven" trademark. Would it still be a problem for ""
> if
> > it also had a similar disclaimer?
> >
> The reason I’m pushing back on fluo being in compliance with Apache
> trademark policy is that we currently have a mess with several other
> projects. PMCs are having a difficult time defending Apache’s brands.
We don't want to add to that list. We want to find some way to be compliant
without hurting the project or its community which extends outside of the
ASF. We previously had a single entity (, and we're trying to split
into two distinct entities (an ASF PMC at, and an
independent community of related tools at with non-overlapping,
but clearly complimentary, scopes.

> “The other guys are not in compliance so we don’t have to be” is not a
> good response. We are trying to straighten out other misuses of Apache
> trademarks and don’t want any more issues while we figure out how to fix
> the others.
That wasn't what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that it seems
like there are circumstances similar to what we are trying to achieve which
are, in fact, acceptable uses of trademark. I wasn't pointing out that
these other sites aren't compliant. I was pointing out that we'd like to
move towards whatever it takes to fall within these acceptable
circumstances which apply to these others.

So, my goal here is to find what is reasonable and acceptable for our

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