"I think the reverse-assignment idea is the best. But that appears to have zero traction at ZC. I believe that they believe that owning the trademark has a value that trumps any other possible arrangement. I can't imagine that the idea of changing the name of the software has any *more* traction than TM assignment, but it's something to at least start a discussion with."
Sure. It's *great* starting point, because it's a credible option and may lead to a more reasonable compromise.
"I'm not sure anyone else (hosting companies, individual contractors, etc.) would be terribly negatively impacted by a software name change. They're still going to have their existing customers and people are still going to seek them out as "Insert Name Here" experts no matter what the name is."
Personally, I have only relatively recently (~18-24 months) had people seek me out as a Zope expert. Instead, the bulk of my experience consists of seeking out new customers and then convincing them that a solution they haven't heard of isn't risky. The larger the customer, the more effort needs to go into this eduvcation process. Plone now has more name recognition than Zope, BTW. Changing the name *will* set things back for a few years.
"I also don't think the effect of changing the name would mean a slow slide into obscurity for ZC. They were pretty successful when they were named Digital Creations, before they even owned the trademark on the business use of the word Zope."
Yes, they were successful in terms of getting contracts and making money, but no-one knew who they were (among the decision makers they needed to convince). This was in fact the argument they made in favor of changing their name. As a result, DC/ZC's marketing ROI went up, since they now had better name recognition. If a name change for the software is successful, then over the long term (2-3 years) that marketing ROI will go back down, and *that* is the sense of 'obscurity' that I was using.
"My fear is that Zope (the technology and the community) *itself* is beginning a slow slide into obscurity. That's really no good for anybody, including ZC."
True. And changing the name is a somewhat risky solution (certainly more risky that transfering the TM to the foundation), but it is a viable solution if none other can be found that is acceptable to ZC.
Sure. It's *great* starting point, because it's a credible option and may lead to a more reasonable compromise.
"I'm not sure anyone else (hosting companies, individual contractors, etc.) would be terribly negatively impacted by a software name change. They're still going to have their existing customers and people are still going to seek them out as "Insert Name Here" experts no matter what the name is."
Personally, I have only relatively recently (~18-24 months) had people seek me out as a Zope expert. Instead, the bulk of my experience consists of seeking out new customers and then convincing them that a solution they haven't heard of isn't risky. The larger the customer, the more effort needs to go into this eduvcation process. Plone now has more name recognition than Zope, BTW. Changing the name *will* set things back for a few years.
"I also don't think the effect of changing the name would mean a slow slide into obscurity for ZC. They were pretty successful when they were named Digital Creations, before they even owned the trademark on the business use of the word Zope."
Yes, they were successful in terms of getting contracts and making money, but no-one knew who they were (among the decision makers they needed to convince). This was in fact the argument they made in favor of changing their name. As a result, DC/ZC's marketing ROI went up, since they now had better name recognition. If a name change for the software is successful, then over the long term (2-3 years) that marketing ROI will go back down, and *that* is the sense of 'obscurity' that I was using.
"My fear is that Zope (the technology and the community) *itself* is beginning a slow slide into obscurity. That's really no good for anybody, including ZC."
True. And changing the name is a somewhat risky solution (certainly more risky that transfering the TM to the foundation), but it is a viable solution if none other can be found that is acceptable to ZC.