activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:09:26 GMT
Hi Gary,

Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
the last month. The discussion is one of these options:

1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
 a.  ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
 b.  HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)

2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
  a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
  <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
needs to be made.

3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
Apache HornetQ (incubating)

It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.

The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
fairly sure that this isn’t.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Cc: <board@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation

>Hi Chris,
>on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>
>cheers,
>Gary.
>
>On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>> community needs to address.
>>
>> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>> branding, etc.  http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>>
>> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache and
>> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP.  If HornetQ
>> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) - hornetq.jboss.org
>> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>> report.
>>
>>
>> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>>community
>> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out HornetQ into
>> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1 project
>> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice must
>> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>>
>> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s a
>> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>> To: <board@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the individual"
>>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation, and to
>>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately; again,
>>>as
>>>"Chris, the individual".
>>>
>>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have been the
>>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a specific
>>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per Jim's note.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Greg Stein
>>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>>>
>>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
>>>> is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
>>>> project and community.
>>>>
>>>> As such:
>>>>
>>>> The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in
>>>>ActiveMQ.
>>>> There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella
>>>>of
>>>> this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another
>>>>is
>>>> the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
>>>> as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
>>>> instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.
>>>>
>>>> The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
>>>> the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job
>>>>is
>>>> not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
>>>> encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
>>>> action is required by the board.
>>>>
>>>> We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
>>>> roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
>>>> or as 2 distinct projects.
>>>>
>>>>...
>>
>>



Mime
View raw message