Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] An open proposal for the direction of future Java EE Naming
Thank you, Mariano, this is the best clarification of the legal issues for the new Java EE branding I've seen so far.

To clarify, my position is to try to find the best name that can keep continuity and integrity of the Java EE ecosystem. If it can't be Java EE anymore then the next option thoroughly investigated should be something that is connected to the former name. Only if all options fail, then something that at least resembles the current brand. And only if that fails, a completely new name could be an option, but it could also mean that Java EE will fail to keep its promise and will lose relevance. And I believe that many people in the Java EE Guardian group share the same position instead of pushing deliberately against Oracle's lawyers.

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".

I don't think I understand. All the time I mean the new name for the Java EE brand. When I wrote "pattern" or "direction", I meant direction of thinking about the new brand name and not about a convention for individual specifications or projects. What I suggest was that instead of Java EE, which we can't use, choose something that ends with "for Java EE" that can be shortened to something that makes sense and can be trademarked, e.g. E4JavaEE or E4JEE (if Java can't be part of the trademark).

If I summarize Mariano's and Mike's comments, then it's probable that nothing with Java or Java EE, not even at the end like in "Eclipse Enterprise for Java", could be a new name for the Java EE brand. I'd like to note that although Java is a trademark, Java EE is not, according to the trademark registers I went through (despite the Java EE logo that puts TM behind EE) But I understand it's not very relevant if even "for Java" can't be used.

But I still don't get why something with JEE or another hint at the former name would be invalid. I don't want to go into any arguments, but I think that options like JEE, E4JEE or EEJ or similar should be seriously considered before any other option. Or even something like Jeenious would still be sort of OK, although far from ideal. Mike's response gives me a hope that there are still some open options and I hope that at least one of them is in line with my arguments. I'm looking forward to hearing about the options that are legally valid in the near future.

Kind regards,
Ondro

2018-01-23 18:59 GMT+01:00 Mariano Amar <mariano.amar@xxxxxxxxxx>:
The problem isn't with the project name. We could just as well call it the "Microsoft Windows and Red Hat Watson Interpreter Java Enterprise" project. As long as it's an internal name (for a loose definition of "internal"), then it's our problem, "Language cannot be trademarked" and all that.

The issue is that we need a trademarked brand to use for the product. And for that, we can't use anything that's already trademarked by somebody else. That includes Java, Java SE, Java EE, Java ME, J2SE, J2EE, J2ME, and any other variations.

As a caveat, Oracle (the owner of all Java trademarks) has given third parties leave to use the Java trademark (and a few others) in very specific ways for their products. In general, for products that will interface somehow with Java, to make this situation visible (and thus, the "for Java" allowance) if, and only if, you make it very explicit that your product is not a part of Java, only related to it peripherally.

Even then, you're not allowed to trademark a name with Java in it. You must trademark a name without the Java brand, then you can add the "for Java" (or equivalent) every time you use your brand.
Another requirement to use Java in that way is that, when represented graphically, it must appear as subscript to your brand name, and it cannot use the colors most attributed to the Java brand (or Oracle), so no red for Oracle, no Orange+Blue/Grey for Java, etc.

The legal docs for this are very specific and clear on the issue. I cannot fathom how anybody can keep arguing this issue, unless they're doing it deliberately (like the Java Guardians, whose position on this is that they wish Oracle would extend a more permissive licence on the brand to us, but they perfectly acknowledge this is a legal issue over Oracle owned brands).

Mariano Amar

Senior Consultant

email/hangouts: mariano.amar@wes-it.com
skype: marianoamar

AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD DE CORREO ELECTRÓNICO

Esta comunicación contiene información que es confidencial y también puede contener información privilegiada. Es para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si usted no es el destinatario tenga en cuenta que cualquier distribución, copia o uso de esta comunicación o la información que contiene está estrictamente prohibida. Si usted ha recibido esta comunicación por error por favor notifíquelo por correo electrónico(info@xxxxxxxxxx) o por teléfono (+54 11 3249 7503)

This communication contains information that is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the recipient. If you are not the intended note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information it contains is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by email(info@xxxxxxxxxx) or phone (+54 11 3249 7503)


On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Michael Nascimento <misterm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So basically:

- EE4JEE as a top-level project would be ok? (not necessarily saying we want it, just checking if I got your explanation)
- Eclipse Enterprise Standards for Java EE falls short of your 2nd check (yes, I know I'm using Enterprise twice, but from what I understand it's necessary to bypass the trademark check)?

Regards,
Michael

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:
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> 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?





_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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


Back to the top