Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Mars+1 Naming Issues

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It does help, Mike, thanks. I probably
originally heard "commonly used names", and shorted that in my
memory to "common names" where as in legal terms, it means more
"generic
names". (Which, still doesn't
help us lay-people much, in being able to judge such things.) 

Given Mike's comment that it was "just
bad luck", I still suggest we "restart" expanding the pool
to include "O" and "P" as well as "N". 

Chris, would you mind? (and, if you
can think of how/if to include getting community feedback on "using
the year (or other numeral instead)" that might be interesting to
know. Such as, if overwhelming support for "just using the year",
then ... perhaps we should consider that more seriously? -- then again,
if lots of "complaints" about the idea, we'd know not to go down
that path. 

Thanks, 




From:      
 Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx,

Date:      
 02/25/2015 03:40 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]
Mars+1 Naming Issues
Sent by:    
   eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

On 25/02/2015 3:01 PM, David M Williams wrote:
I also thought, the reason we tended
towards names of people, planets, and ancient gods was that we were told
"common names" can not be trademarked. Has that changed? Wrong
in the first place? Or, is the "external attorney" judging on
a different criteria? These are not names *we* want to trademark, right?
Would it make a difference if we make "Eclipse" part of "official
name" (such as the "Eclipse Mars" release) ... and, don't
think anyone would say we could not abbreviate in URLs, etc. to the shorter
name of .../releases/mars (for example).  [Mike, feel free to take
these legal questions, off-line, if appropriate. But, it would help if
we had guidance on "types of names" that were not subject to
being trademark ... unless there really is no such thing.] 

We already do make Eclipse part of the official name.

I'm not sure where the impression that common names cannot be trademarked
came from. AFAIK, any name can be trademarked in a given context.

IANAL but as I understand it, there are basically two scenarios where we
can use a name: (a) no one is using it, and (b) lot of organizations are
using it, so no single entity has a dominant claim.

I do not believe that there is any useful criteria that I (or anyone else)
can supply on what kind of names to consider. This year (unlike in the
past), every single name we looked at has strong incumbents using that
name. It's just bad luck.

Hope that helps.

-- 
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council

IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.