| Re: [ee4j-community] An open proposal for the direction of future Java EE Naming |
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
ee4j-community-owner@eclipse.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: An open proposal for the direction of future Java EE
Naming (Mike Milinkovich)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:59:32 -0500
From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org >
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] An open proposal for the direction of
future Java EE Naming
Message-ID:
<d7102f23-c0d1-165f-7fa1-25b46f7e9133@eclipse- >foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 2018-01-23 11:27 AM, Michael Nascimento wrote:
> Mike,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Mike Milinkovich
> <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> <mailto:mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org >> wrote:
>
> ?"Java EE" as a name and brand is owned and controlled by Oracle,
> via the JCP. Since the JCP is not going to be used going forward,
> using Java EE (even as a suffix) doesn't seem like a viable option.
>
>
> You could have said:
>
> ?"Java" as a name and brand is owned and controlled by Oracle, via the
> JCP. Since the JCP is not going to be used going forward, using Java
> (even as a suffix) doesn't seem like a viable option.
>
> And it would be true and yet you can use it in EE4J for some unclear
> reason for us, since Java EE is not allowed. Could you enlighten us here?
We are talking about apples and oranges here. EE4J is the name of an
Eclipse Foundation top-level project. The questions at hand is what
brand can we use for labeling a large family of technologies, enforcing
compatibility, and so on. To do those requires a legitimate registered
trademark.
Yes, you are there is nothing illegal with calling something
"Specifications for Java EE". However this thread is suggesting that
this convention be used for all involved specifications and projects
instead of picking and trademarking an entirely new name to replace
"Java EE". Specifically,? "Extensions for Java EE" or "Components for
Java EE" or "Specifications for Java EE".
Let us see how this would work if we tried to trademark "Specifications
for Java EE" so that we could tie that label to enforcing compatibility
with a specification:
1. We would have to explicitly disclaim the "for Java EE" since that
name is trademarked by Oracle. You can use that phrase under the
doctrine of nominative fair use, but you cannot trademark it.
2. The USPTO would tell us that the word "Specifications" is a generic
industry term, and certainly could not be owned as a trademark by
the Eclipse Foundation.
In other words we cannot trademark "Extensions for Java EE" or
"Components for Java EE" or "Specifications for Java EE". And if we
cannot trademark them, we cannot use them for what we want to accomplish.
The above is a narrow legalistic explanation of why this wouldn't work.
The larger point is what Will Lyons stated in his email.
Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood the proposal?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j- >community/attachments/ 20180123/c93e2699/attachment. html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j- community
End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 5, Issue 109
**********************************************