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
