[zeromq-dev] Trademark policy for 0MQ

Daisuke Maki lestrrat at gmail.com
Thu May 12 17:05:46 CEST 2011

1. Initial Reaction

I understand that you need to set the rules, so I'm not against the trademark
stuff in principle, but I'm a bit upset at how this came about to be -
Especially the fact that I was pretty much just told to change the
name of the Perl binding without any forewarning.

As for the perl binding name, it's very uncommon for perl bindings to
have a Perl- prefix as suggested in the trademark page. In this (perl)
culture having such a prefix looks extremely lame.

Also, I think the wording on the trademark page looks hostile. That's
part why I'm being pissy -  I felt like I was threatened. As discussed
separately in IRC, something like the Debian trademark (
http://www.debian.org/trademark ) would have made me feel little more
secure about it.

2. In Search Of A Compromise

Now having expressed my pissy reaction, let me try to be a bit more

If you insist on the package changing its name, fine.
The owners have the final say, so I'll comply.

But for the perl binding I at least need a good alternative name suggestion.
Perl culture doesn't use the "Perl" prefix.
If you want to put a prefix, either a package/software name or term
that describes the module's nature is used: e.g. Net::SNMP,
Test::Exception, etc.

I really don't have a good candidate for zeromq. Net::ZeroMQ? Yeah,
sure it's network related, but it feels weird. ZeroMQ is ZeroMQ...
that's why the previous owner ( who started the perl binding ) named
it so.

3. Concerns

The other side effect of a rename is that I'd have to tell all of my
users (which, I don't know how many there are, so it might or might
not be a significant number) to switch the module name. Granted, it's
just a simple search/replace, but it's a hassle that I'd have to
impose on them nonetheless.

I personally don't feel like it's worth it at this point.

4. Summary

   * I understand you need to have a guideline.
   * If you really insist, the name for the perl binding can be changed.
   * I currently don't have a good alternative name.
   * I personally don't feel the naming is worth the trouble.

   * The wording on that trademark page looks very hostile.
     Can you please adjust the wording on that trademark page so that
it's more relaxed?

So yeah, I understand why this is necessary, and I'm not against the principle.
But I don't like how it's handled, I don't like how it's worded, and I
don't think forcing a rename on a binding is worth it.

An please next time, send me a friendly warning before filing an issue?
I'm usually not this pissy, and I usually just comply with such
guidelines (I'm an obedient Japanese guy, remember?)


2011/5/12 Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>:
> Hi all,
> I've written down a provisional policy for use of the 0MQ-related
> trademarks, here: http://www.imatix.com/trademark-policy
> The intention is to prevent confusion from other products that call
> themselves "zeromq" and prevent forks that live outside the 0MQ
> community.
> Please discuss, if this is an aspect you care about.
> -Pieter
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list