Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] [COMPLETE] Replace MicroProfile Compatibi

["Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

As a follow-up is the word MicroProfile being asserted as a trademark of the working group in addition to the logo?

Thanks

Steve

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 8:22:59 PM
To: Microprofile WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] [COMPLETE] Replace MicroProfile Compatibility Logo with compatible implementations web page

 

Hi Steve,

INAL. And with that disclaimer, yes, I am saying that:

"... as a member of the working group, the logo and word(?) can only be used to refer to the working group and its specifications rather than to any implementation of the specifications"

So as you say:

“<logo> Payara Server is MicroProfile™ Compatible”  NOT ALLOWED;

Note that: 

“Payara Server is a compatible implementation of the MicroProfile™ Platform 4.1 specification <logo>” NOT ALLOWED 

Inclusion of the logo can have the effect of establishing a "compatibility logo", which is now out of bounds.

However: 

“Payara Server is a compatible implementation of the MicroProfile™ Platform 4.1 specification" ALLOWED

HTH

... Paul

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:22 AM Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Paul,

 

Just to clarify in my simple mind.
Note I am not looking for definitive trademark legal advice here but I think I am missing the subtle implications of the vote.

 

Are you saying that, as a member of the working group, the logo and word(?) can only be used to refer to the working group and its specifications rather than to any implementation of the specifications?

 

e.g.

“<logo> Payara Server is MicroProfile™ Compatible”  NOT ALLOWED;

“Payara Server is a compatible implementation of the MicroProfile™ Platform 4.1 specification <logo>” ALLOWED

 

But if we had a compatibility program then the first option would be ALLOWED?

 

 

Thanks

 

Steve

 

 

From: microprofile-wg <microprofile-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Paul Buck
Sent: 24 November 2021 19:37
To: Microprofile WG discussions <microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [microprofile-wg] [BALLOT] [COMPLETE] Replace MicroProfile Compatibility Logo with compatible implementations web page

 

 

Given the passage of the resolution:

 

RESOLVED, the Steering Committee confirms that the MicroProfile working group will operate without a MicroProfile compatibility program and will not develop and utilize a Compatibility logo for use by compatible implementations of MicroProfile, and instead will allow any implementation that can make bonafide claims of compatibility in accordance with the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process to be listed and linked to as a compatible implementation on its webpage.

 

For clarity, I would like to provide guidance on what the working group and implementers of the MicroProfile specifications including the platform specification can say regarding compatibility.

 

The MicroProfile logo may not be used in conjunction with any product which claims compatibility. As per the Eclipse Foundation Trademark Usage Policy “The use of Eclipse WG Trademarks is restricted to identifying the applicable WG or their deliverables, which may include specifications, as applicable…[nor is it permitted to] suggest endorsement, association or affiliation with a WG or Eclipse Trademark without prior written approval of Eclipse….” A compatible third party implementation is not a working group deliverable. Having no compatibility logo or program, it is therefore not permitted to compose the MicroProfile logo with any descriptor that says or implies compatibility. 

 

Compatible implementations of specifications may be listed on a specification’s project page. It is expected that a compatible implementation would do a certification request that would be approved by the spec project prior to adding the implementation to their project page.

 

An implementer of any MicroProfile specification including the Platform Specification who has passed the applicable TCK and is in compliance with the Eclipse Foundation TCK Licence can make bonafide statements of compatibility. Examples:

·        Foo is a compatible implementation of the MicroProfile Config 2.0 specification.

·        Foobar is a compatible implementation of the MicroProfile Platform 4.1 specification

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks ... Paul

 

 

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:45 PM John Clingan <jclingan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I declare this ballot complete and approved.

The summary of the votes is below.  9 votes, 2 abstains (“no votes”), 6 +1s, 3 -1s. The votes meet the two thirds super-majority threshold.

 

Corporate/Community Member	Vote
Atlanta JUG	+1
Community (Edwin Derks)	+1
Fujitsu	-1
Garden State JUG	+1
IBM	0
iJUG	-1
Jelastic	+1
Oracle	-1
Payara	0
Red Hat	+1
Tomitribe	+1
Total	6
Non-binding Votes	0
Total	6

 

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg

_______________________________________________
microprofile-wg mailing list
microprofile-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/microprofile-wg