apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko ─îibej <br...@xbc.nu>
Subject Re: [discuss] Releasing pre-release APR
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:35:27 GMT
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Branko ─îibej wrote:
>> "Violation of the Apache APR trademark"? For distributing modified APR
>> code? Are you serious? You are, among other things, explicitly
>> forbidding drop-in re-implementations which our license pretty much
>> expressly allows. -1, and if this is a snipe at that recent httpd-alpha
>> release, which "in light of current events" it appears to be, -2.
> How so?  Our license policy doesn't allow people to recycle our trademarks.
> And it says nothing about re-implementations at all, AIUI.
> They can do just about *anything* with the code by design, but not with the
> Apache APR name itself.  The same will be true for Apache Subversion.
> Replacements can *never* use an Apache project name without explicit
> permission.  Only Apache Software Foundation code can be called "Apache Foo".

Trademark protection is AIUI about misrepresentation, not about code
modification. Specifically, you can't expect a trademark-protection
argument to stick on the basis of a file name being the same. If the
entity that distributed that file called itself "The Real APR", then
that would be a different kettle of fish. That was *not* the case in
"current events".

Your whole proposed text looks like it's trying to use the
trademark-protection hammer for situations like that latest 1.4.0-dev
that was packaged within httpd-alpha. Why not simply state:

    "Code that was not released by the APR project does not constitude
    an APR release and is not bound to the APR versioning rules, you
    break your code at your own risk."

It says pretty much what you want to say without all the quasi-legalese
C&D handwaving. But it's already implied in all that the status of an
Apache Project stands for, so why reiterate it?

-- Brane

View raw message