Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Updating CompatibleImplementation brands

Hi All,

while all is going well with the approach outlined in this thread, I wanted to share an email write up on this topic that was shared in Jakarta EE Steering Committee <jakarta.ee-steering@xxxxxxxxxxx> mailing list, so not everyone from the Specification Committee is aware of the email.

In the Draft 2021 Jakarta EE Program Plan - by quarter on Slide 7, bulletin point:

  • Provide guidance on how or if an implementation can use the Specification name in its brand

Use of Jakarta EE Specification names must comply with the Eclipse Foundation Trademark Usage Guidelines, as supplemented by the Jakarta EE Trademark Guidelines. It is important to note that the Jakarta EE guidelines cannot override or contradict the Eclipse Foundation guidelines. The Eclipse Foundation guidelines are a Board-approved document that is amended only upon the advice of the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee of the Board

Jakarta EE specification projects are Eclipse Foundation projects, and their names fall under the guidelines for Eclipse projects, which state in part:


You must not incorporate the name of an Eclipse project, nickname or acronym into the name of your company or software product name. If you have a software product that works with an Eclipse project, you may use phrases such as '<product name> for <Eclipse project name>' or '<product name>, <Eclipse project name> Edition'.


The examples in the second sentence above are to allow what lawyers refer to as “nominative fair use” and, by law, cannot be prevented. So any product or project (including ones hosted at the Eclipse Foundation) can use a name consistent with nominative fair use. 


The trademark guidelines also state elsewhere that any use of working group names and logos is not permitted.


Therefore, the guidance on “...how or if an implementation can use the Specification name in its brand...” is simple and straightforward: they cannot. Any implementations must use a different name, or a name compliant with nominative fair use. 


Hope this helps!

Thanks,
Tanja

On 2021-02-03 7:20 a.m., Werner Keil wrote:

But why different from Jakarta Concurrency or do you say that should probably also better change to "Eclipse Concurrency" in the next release?

 

Werner

 

Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10

 

Von: Dmitry Kornilov
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2021 13:06
An: Jakarta specification committee
Betreff: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [External] : Updating CompatibleImplementation brands

 

I agree. I'll change it to "Eclipse JSON Processing".

 

-- Dmitry

From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 03 February 2021 00:00
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [External] : [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Updating Compatible Implementation brands

 

Moving this to a separate thread so we don't overlook it.

> Unrelated comment, I noticed the compatible implementation listed for JSON P is wrong.  It says the compatible implementations name is "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0."  That's not appropriate.  For 1.2 we used "Eclipse JSON Processing 1.1.5"
>
>  - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/1.1/__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!PO7vtE9KruTDxaQG0jhxQLV5pzjYSKaocZ42111ABldji0pR0rG5KGNgiuEmsW88A1Lu$
>  - https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://jakarta.ee/specifications/jsonp/2.0/__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!PO7vtE9KruTDxaQG0jhxQLV5pzjYSKaocZ42111ABldji0pR0rG5KGNgiuEmsSgYGeNB$
>
> This is part of the Advance Implementation Neutrality topic in our 2021 plan.  Thihup's implementation cannot be perceived as competing against "the official" Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0 implementation also called "Jakarta JSON Processing 2.0.0."
>
> No implementation should be allowed to use the spec branding like that, even if it is in at Eclipse, a former RI, or happens to be in the same repo as the spec.  The fact that the Eclipse implementation is in the same repo is something that needs to be fixed.  Until we fix it, we still need to use neutral branding like "Eclipse JSON Processing" or "Eclipse Mail."

Thoughts?


-David

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!PO7vtE9KruTDxaQG0jhxQLV5pzjYSKaocZ42111ABldji0pR0rG5KGNgiuEmsXzx6Xfw$

 


_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
--

Tanja Obradovic

Jakarta EE Program Manager | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

Twitter: @TanjaEclipse

Eclipse Foundation: The Platform for Open Innovation and Collaboration


Back to the top