Community
Participate
Working Groups
Some projects assert brands beyond their project name. Xtext's "Xtend" and CDO's "Dawn" are two examples. Do we need to address this in the EDP? For example, these brands--being part of Eclipse projects--are the property of the Eclipse Foundation. We do proper trademark searches on project names, so we should likely do proper trademark searches and assertions on these additional brands. There is some cost associated with doing this, so we'd like to avoid having every project assert multiple brands. At the same time, I don't want to artifically restrict projects from doing the "right thing". Also, the EDP may need to make it clear that the community and eco-system need to be adequately informed of the brands as part of the regular review process. Or is this obvious?
I think this will also involve changes to the trademark policy. I don't think that we assert trademark coverage just because a project uses some additional name (e.g. "Xtend"). AFAIK we only claim that project names are trademarks.
I don't think there's value in adding anything to the EDP. I may add a recommendation to the release review guidelines document [1] to describe brands asserted by the project. [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Reviews
(In reply to comment #0) > Some projects assert brands beyond their project name. Xtext's "Xtend" and > CDO's "Dawn" are two examples. For the sake of correctness, if you find a place where CDO's Dawn component is not explicitely mentioned as "CDO Dawn", please let me know so that we can fix it. At the time Martin Fluegge contributed Dawn to CDO we've discussed the naming and agreed that it should be "CDO Dawn". Nevertheless I just notice that his rarely used logo, e.g., https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/emf-cdo-integration , should be fixed ;-) But we have other examples, most of them either evolved from components that were separate in the past (e.g. Net4j) or that are our own development tools (e.g. Version Management Tool). It would be good to know if that's in line with the rules.
(In reply to comment #3) > But we have other examples, most of them either evolved from components that > were separate in the past (e.g. Net4j) or that are our own development tools > (e.g. Version Management Tool). It would be good to know if that's in line > with the rules. Seeing as we have no formal rules, I guess that it's in line with the rules :-) If anything, the rule is "be reasonable".
I'm closing this as WONTFIX on the basis that there is no apparent need to do this.
