[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam

Mike,

Thanks for the excellent details!

I know Rich is generally in favor of promoting a merged common identity so
would like to see oAW blend right in to a great extent.  Hence doing (2)(a)
does not have much appeal to him (to put words in his mouth).    Of course
I tend to agree with that, but I do fully recognize that if you have a
brand like IBM or Borland, there's no danger of your brand disappearing of
the face of the earth, while the oAW folks are a small group who have
worked hard to build world class reputation around the technology
associated with the oAW brand.   So I think it's in their best interests to
follow your advice.   I believe they currently have effectively no
protection for their brand and hence pretty much anyone could use or abuse
it.  So doing (1) will help them/us be able to assert that only those
involved in developing and/or distributing the Modeling
projects/technologies at/from Eclipse will be able to use exploit this
brand.

If I've mischaracterized anyone's position or thinking, please correct
me....


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 313)




                                                                           
             "Mike                                                         
             Milinkovich"                                                  
             <mike.milinkovich                                          To 
             @eclipse.org>             Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,         
                                       <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>          
             04/04/2008 11:28                                           cc 
             AM                        "'Amalgamation project developer    
                                       mailing list'"                      
                                       <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,          
             Please respond to         <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
             <mike.milinkovich         "'Janet Campbell'"                  
               @eclipse.org>           <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>        
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in        
                                       Amalgam                             
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Ed,

We are definitely interested. Please don't interpret this thread as saying
that we are not interested in seeing this happen.

Just to clarify this a wee bit more.

We (the Eclipse Foundation) do not assert trademarks for names other than
those listed in our current trademark guidelines[1]. Those currently
include:

             * Eclipse
             * Eclipse Foundation Member
             * Built on Eclipse
             * Eclipse Ready
             * Eclipse Incubation and Eclipse Proposal
             * and all --project-- names and logos

We don't see where to currently fit oAW on this list. In other words, we
can
own the mark, but we have no process in place to protect or assert the
mark.
But we (the EMO) agree that having oAW as an Eclipse trademark would be
helpful in clarifying that oAW is part of the Eclipse community. We would
like to help. There are things we can do:

             (1) The existing owners of the oAW trademark and logo and
domain
name(s) assigned them the Eclipse Foundation. This will involve a transfer
agreement and some expense on the Foundation's part to search for other
users of the mark.
             (2) We (Eclipse) then do one of the following actions to
protect the
mark:
                         (a) we create a project called
"openArchitectureWare" so it
fits into the existing framework
                         (b) we amend the trademark guidelines to add oAW
as a
special case - a uniquely listed and protected mark
                         (c) we amend the trademark guidelines to add the
concept
that package names can be trademarks of the Eclipse Foundation in the same
way that project names are protected today.

My personal preference would be to do (1) and (2)(c) in parallel. (2)(c)
will take some time, but I can easily imagine that over time there will be
other packages which will want to have an interesting name and identity. It
would be a worthy enhancement to the trademark guidelines.

I hope this helps.

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 10:49 AM
> To: ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Amalgamation project developer mailing list'; bjorn.freeman-
> benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Janet Campbell'; mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
>
> Ian,
>
> No, oAW is a collection of technologies that started in GMT and are now
> distributed across the modeling project in their appropriate
> categories.
> Xpand in M2T, MWE in EMFT, Xtext in TMF...
>
> Probably it's best to think of oAW as the name of a "project" denoting
> an
> EPP subset of things that Amalgam provides.  So you're saying that
> unless
> we create a component/project within Amalgam that's named oAW, the
> foundation is not interested in the issue and has no problems with the
> oAW
> brand/logo being used on Eclipse pages?  That's okay with me too if
> it's
> not an issue that will resurface in the future when "member value
> through
> advertisement" becomes an issue.
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265  (t/l 313)
>
>
>
>
>
>              "Ian Skerrett"
>              <ian.skerrett@ecl
>              ipse.org>
> To
>                                        Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
> "'Janet
>              04/04/2008 09:30          Campbell'"
>              AM                        <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> cc
>                                        "'Amalgamation project developer
>              Please respond to         mailing list'"
>              <ian.skerrett@ecl         <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>                  ipse.org>             <bjorn.freeman-
> benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>                                        <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject
>                                        RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>                                        Amalgam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ed,
>
> Is oAW now an Eclipse project within the modeling project.   I see we
> have
> this component in GMT http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/oaw/ but there is also
> http://www.openarchitectureware.org/.
>
> We assert trademark ownership over Eclipse project names.   I don't see
> how
> we could claim a trademark on something that is not an Eclipse project.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 9:03 AM
> To: Janet Campbell
> Cc: 'Amalgamation project developer mailing list';
> bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
>
> Janet,
>
> No.  The oAW folks would like to create an EPP package that's a subset
> of
> the components that Amalgam as a whole will provide, as well as some,
> what
> they're calling "glue" code for integrating other "parts of oAW" that
> are
> currently (and will always be) in other existing projects, e.g., an
> Eclipse
> perspective.
>
> Here's an example of Xpand:
>
>    http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/m2t/?project=xpand
>
> Notice how the page describes it this way:
>
>    Xpand is the code generation language from Open ArchitectureWare
> (oAW).
>
> One might interpret this as adverstising a commerical brand.  So our
> collective desire is to see oAW and its existing logos be properly
> "registered" as trademarks of the Eclipse foundation so that any
> mention of
> them and use of their logos cannot be intepretted as commerical
> advertisement...
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265  (t/l 313)
>
>
>
>
>
>              "Janet Campbell"
>              <janet.campbell@e
>              clipse.org>
> To
>                                        Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
>              04/04/2008 08:36          "'Amalgamation project developer
>              AM                        mailing list'"
>                                        <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> cc
>                                        <bjorn.freeman-
> benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>                                        <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>                                        <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject
>                                        RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>                                        Amalgam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> Could you clarify for us - is the proposal to rename the Amalgam
> project to
> OpenArchitectureWare?
>
> Thanks,
> Janet
>
> Janet Campbell
> Phone:  +1.613.224.9461, x.229 (GMT -5)
> Fax:  +1.613.224.5172
> janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:31 AM
> To: Amalgamation project developer mailing list
> Cc: bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; Janet Campbell
> Subject: Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
>
> Bjorn/Janet,
>
> We're curious what concrete steps need to be taken to ensure that the
> oAW
> brand is contributed to Eclipse as an Eclipse brand, much in the same
> way
> that the tigerstripe commericial brand was donated?  Could you guys
> please
> help us with that?
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265  (t/l 313)
>
>
>
>
>
>              Richard Gronback
>              <richard.gronback
>              @borland.com>
> To
>              Sent by:                  Amalgamation project developer
>              amalgam-dev-bounc         mailing list
>              es@xxxxxxxxxxx            <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> cc
>
>              04/03/2008 06:59
> Subject
>              AM                        Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
>                                        Amalgam
>
>              Please respond to
>                Amalgamation
>              project developer
>                mailing list
>              <amalgam-dev@ecli
>                  pse.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Sven,
>
> I guess the next steps are to do whatever is required to resolve the
> branding issue, and to provide a patch through Bugzilla for the UI
> elements
> that would be included in the oAW download.
>
> This week I'm looking into build and packaging options, and would also
> like
> to install all of the modeling components and take a close look at the
> current state of all our UI elements.
>
> Best,
> Rich
>
>
> On 4/3/08 3:48 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rich,
> > Great!
> > oAW has always been highly extensible. It is for example shipped as
> > part of MID's Innovator.
> > Other product vendors are also working on integrating it.
> (Ultimately,
> > we'ld love to see every development product on this planet having oAW
> > integrated :-))
> >
> > So, do we agree on making oAW an eclipse brand and creating a
> > corresponding component (or subproject) under Amalgamation?
> > What could be the next step to push this forward?
> >
> > atb,
> > Sven
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2008, at 17:57 , Richard Gronback wrote:
> >> Hi Sven,
> >>
> >> It seems we are not disagreeing.  I understand the history of the
> oAW
> >> brand issue, and if it becomes an Eclipse brand, we're all set.
> >> Otherwise, we
> >> return to an old discussion about marketing value, commercial vs.
> >> non-commercial, vs. academic, etc. that I'd like to avoid
> altogether.
> >> Most contributions at Eclipse have shed their previous
> >> branding/identity, by the way.
> >>
> >> Components is the way to go, or whatever we call them based on the
> >> ongoing discussion of project, subproject, component, etc.  What I'm
> >> saying mostly is that they will depend on a common core, from the
> >> start.
> >>
> >> Regarding product vs. project, if what is used by the end user
> >> community is not built upon an extensible framework that is
> >> consumable by the adopter community, you're not truly living up to
> >> the responsibility of being an Eclipse project. We're not here to
> >> simply give away tooling, but to support the three defined
> >> communities.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/2/08 11:31 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Rich,
> >>>
> >>> please find my comments inlined:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have a problem with having components within Amalgam that
> >>>> represent specific workflows with corresponding download
> >>>> configurations.  For example, an oAW component that includes what
> >>>> you list below, or one that covers GMF, Xpand, and QVTO.  However,
> >>>> the brand "oAW" seems to not be the most descriptive (it's quite
> >>>> vague).
> >>>
> >>> Sure it's not descriptive.
> >>> I don't want to discuss it like that. I think it's clear what it is
> >>> about:
> >>> We've been developing under this brand for several years. At some
> >>> point we started to contribute all our technologies to Eclipse
> >>> Modeling. So now there's only the brand left as well as the
> >>> mentioned integration code and some components wich of course would
> >>> fit into some of our projects (e.g. emft).
> >>> We put a lot of work into the brand and simply don't want to throw
> >>> it away. Instead we want to contribute it to Eclipse Modeling as
> well.
> >>> It wouldn't be "our" (oAW guys) brand anymore but "ours" (Eclipse
> >>> Modeling Guys) ;-). And of course it won't just consist of the X-
> >>> Stuff from oAW but instead would include GMF, EMF, most of the EMFT
> >>> components as well as UML2. So it's one possible "amalgamation"
> >>> named oAW.
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, I can't think of anything more descriptive than perhaps
> >>>> the "X Modeling" configuration (Xpand, Xtend, Xtext ;).  I know Ed
> >>>> is keen on seeing the oAW brand become an Eclipse brand, similar
> to
> >>>> what Tigerstripe did, afaiu.  In that case, I'm fine with the name
> >>>> within Amalgam.
> >>>
> >>> I think Tigerstripe really is a product.
> >>> oAW is more like AspectJ which has also been an open-source project
> >>> before it came to Eclipse (if i remember correctly).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What I don't want are a bunch of contributions that live in
> >>>> isolation and are not consumable by an adopter, or easily
> >>>> separated. Amalgam is not delivering "products," but deliverables
> >>>> that can be consumed by an adopter, while also improving the
> >>>> experience of the end user community.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, we don't want to see a bunch of contributions livinig in
> >>> isolation, too. The only code really would be the
> >>> "amalgamation"-code already mentioned.
> >>> I don't know what you think what "product" exactly means to you,
> but
> >>> if you don't want to provide a usable piece of software under
> >>> Eclipse Modeling I'm a bit confused of what amalgamation is really
> about.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Understandably, I believe in supporting all 3 communities.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, the approach I'd like to take with Amalgam is to first form
> the
> >>>> base, allowing for extensions that form a set of preconfigured
> >>>> downloads (oAW being perhaps the first, as you guys are
> >>>> able/willing to contribute).
> >>>> Furthermore, inspired by the release train requirements list, if a
> >>>> project does not conform to the proper UI guidelines and make
> >>>> filtering by way of capabilities possible (for example), they
> won't
> >>>> be part of Amalgam.
> >>>
> >>> Again, we really want to provide a good eclipse-ish open-source
> >>> solution for MDD.
> >>> No extra oAW stuff, just a composition of proven Eclipse technology
> >>> and some glue code to improve the user's experience.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO separate components in Amalgamation would be helpful, because
> >>> then we could have a lead, newsgroup, mailing-list and repository
> >>> for each component. Of course you as the project lead should still
> >>> keep everything in sync, eclipse-ish and the way we all want it to
> be.
> >>>
> >>> Sven
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/2/08 9:08 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Rich,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the code we're talking about is integration code like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - an oAW perspective
> >>>>> - wizards covering several components at once
> >>>>> - cheat sheets and documentation covering the whole stack
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would it be possible to have such code in a CVS under
> amalgamation?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sven
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As for the remaining glue code, I can't imagine there is much
> >>>>> here.  I'd
> >>>>>> like to see a base set of Modeling glue that can be used by
> >>>>> adopters, with
> >>>>>> perhaps some specific code to accompany each distro.  In the
> case
> >>>>> of oAW,
> >>>>>> how is it not just a general Modeling collection that favors
> >>>>>> Xpand
> >>>>> over JET,
> >>>>>> Xtend over ATL, Xtext over TCS, etc.?  As discussed at
> >>>>>> EclipseCon,
> >>>>> why not a
> >>>>>> general solution that enables/disables capabilities to allow the
> >>>>> user to
> >>>>>> select the tool collection they prefer?  In this way, each
> distro
> >>>>> may define
> >>>>>> a set of defaults, and perhaps some minimal branding.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
> >>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
> >>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> amalgam-dev mailing list
> >>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> amalgam-dev mailing list
> >> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > amalgam-dev mailing list
> > amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> amalgam-dev mailing list
> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>
>
>
>