A short session, with me joining from Toronto before a talk. Frank asked whether anyone had trademark-checked the names on the ballot, and we agreed to narrow to the top three and check those properly before a final decision. The tally had Spectacle, OpenLint and Sherpa in front. The bigger question was Spectral itself: if SmartBear gave the project and its name to a neutral home, keeping the name would be the best outcome. Frank said the people he had spoken with there were weighing their options. I said I would give it time but wouldn't hold up the work, because of how Swagger went. We also talked about how much the choice of home affects the naming checks, and what people can start on now.
OpenLint · Session 5 of 6
Trademark Due Diligence and the Spectral Question
September 10th, 2026 · 0:12:52
Naming
Trademark
Spectral
Governance
What we worked through
Checking the names properly
A quick search isn’t enough. The plan: narrow to the top three, check trademarks in the main markets plus npm and general search, then hold a final vote. Frank noted the Linux Foundation steers clear of names close to registered companies, not just registered trademarks.
If Spectral were given to the community
Keeping the Spectral name, with the spec and the tool in a governance group, would avoid splitting the community. I have déjà vu from Swagger, where the name was held back at the last minute, so the work moves forward either way.
What to work on now
Aliases, organizing rulesets, teaching people about rules, a rule builder, and default versus custom rules for the spec. Cleanup, modularity, removing telemetry and a supply chain audit for the toolbox. Once the repos exist, everyone can start filing roadmap items.