activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 15:32:15 GMT
(please note mixed private/public lists)

Just to be clear: the ASF *must* own trademark rights to any software
project or product before it can become a top level Apache project.
This is the fundamental way that the ASF can ensure the project can
maintain independent governance in the future.

This is a hard requirement on exiting Incubation; we do not require
trademark rights to *enter* incubation, but there should be a clear
statement that whatever name/logos an incoming podling plans to use will
be donated to the ASF during incubation.  It's a lot easier to start the
podling hosting setup with the right name, rather than changing later.

- Shane

On 3/26/15 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part
> of the larger point. There is a serious
> naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing
> as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or
> having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from
> Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@
> in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC
> long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling.
> I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting.
> CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but
> it should be picked up by the newly elected board.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John D. Ament" <>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <>
>> wrote:
>>> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing
>>> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is
>>> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons.
>>> Note we recently went through a similar thought
>>> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and
>>> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through
>>> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is
>>> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such
>>> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together
>>> (aka you can’t release one without the other).
>>> Here are a few reasons:
>>> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires
>>> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products.
>>> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have
>>> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s
>>> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to
>>> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen.
>>> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds
>>> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee
>>> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and
>>> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue
>>> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there
>>> already.
>>> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that
>>> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set
>>> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now
>>> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through
>>> the IP clearance.
>>> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t
>>> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t
>>> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one.
>>> Instead, I would recommend the following:
>>> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator
>>> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that
>>> are ASF or IPMC members
>>> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its
>>> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups,
>>> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked
>>> out during Incubation.
>>> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into
>>> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have
>>> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Chris
>> Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past
>> and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ.
>> Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a
>> JMS 2.0 implementation.  Heck, that's why I went through the pain of
>> ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see
>> it happen.  I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0
>> implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I
>> believe
>> all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet
>> the
>> feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it.
>> While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that
>> point?  It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to
>> release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while).
>> With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ
>> project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's
>> ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for
>> ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via
>> vote).  Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut
>> releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors.
>> The sticking point's going to come down to name.  I don't see Red Hat
>> shutting off the HornetQ project ( ) so a name
>> would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache
>> isn't even referenced on the site.
>> If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat
>> in as a mentor to get you going.
>> John
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: artnaseef <>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM
>>> To: <>
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>>> Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of
>>> the
>>>> naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't
>>> really
>>>> change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will
>>>> succeed as ActiveMQ 6.
>>>> Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure
>>>> that
>>>> direction is clear is also important.  In that light, I am very glad
>>> to be
>>>> having this discussion.
>>>> The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ
>>>> rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction.  Nor does it
>>>> mean
>>>> that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction.
>>>> So, let's put this back into perspective.
>>>> We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ.  To what benefit for the
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> community?  Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider
>>>> that
>>>> Java is even older than ActiveMQ).
>>>> ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported.  It serves
>>>> mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple
>>> industries,
>>>> and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places.
>>>> Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts:
>>> strength
>>>> of
>>>> technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the
>>> technology;
>>>> ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc.  Therefore, a
>>> presumption
>>>> that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature.
>>>> Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any
>>> valid
>>>> merits described.
>>>> I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?"  Please help me to
>>>> understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem.
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene
>>>> ration-tp4693781p4693805.html
>>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at

View raw message