[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
|
This sounds fine to me. But more importantly, what do the oAW guys think?
Best,
Rich
On 4/5/08 7:23 AM, "Ed Merks" <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> amalgam-dev mailing list
> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
