community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: Apache Extras Question
Date Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:35:37 GMT
(cc'ing dev@community and setting reply-to: header so that replies 
go there)

Hi Mike,

First off, thanks for replying. Comments inline below:

On Dec 29, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:

> I am not an official Apache member, but here's my take on it.
> The Extras project area is for projects related to Apache, but not in
> any way managed by the Apache Software Foundation.  Because of that,
> it may not use the Apache brand-name, trademarks, nor the "org.apache"
> namespace.

It's my understanding that anyone can start up a project at Apache Extras, 
in which case, if that person doesn't have an availid here at the ASF, and
doesn't have an ICLA on file, then that's another situation that I won't 
speculate on. What I'm much more interested in is in the situation I presented
within this thread. I have an availid. I am an ASF member. I was looking 
at Apache Extras as a place to share some Apache OODT plugins that 
leverage code that is LGPL licensed, that I couldn't otherwise share within
the normal Apache OODT SVN home. Prior to me coming to Apache Extras,
this has been code housed in an internal JPL SVN repository for years, even
before we brought the software to Apache. I'd like to use Apache Extras to 
facilitate sharing with an even broader community and to share the plugins
we've developed (which themselves are ALv2 licensed) with others. 

> Consider Apache Extras to be more of an unofficial fan site of Apache.
> If someone (in this case, you) wants to create something that directly
> interacts or is related to Apache OODT, this non-related site gives
> you a place to put it where other Apache OODT users are more likely to
> find it.  

Yep that's what I thought to, which is why I cam here. However, 3.1 and 3.2
are in direct conflict with the mannerism in which I'd like to share the code. 
I *want* to use the org.apache.oodt Java package namespace. I'm a PMC member for 
OODT. The project at Extras is admin'ed by me and open to any OODT PMC
members. I think we should be able to indicate our relationship to Apache 
OODT via use of the namespace and via calling my project oodt-pushpull-plugins.

>  But how the project is managed is up to you, and the
> ownership of the project and its assets remains with you.

That's not how I read 3.1 and 3.2. Because if what you're saying is true, then 
we wouldn't have 3.1 and 3.2 because I would abide by them per my comments

I guess to boil it down: as an ASF member, and a PMC chair for Apache OODT, 
Apache Extras (with 3.1 and 3.2) isn't serving our needs as a community. I'd like
to fix that. Here's 2 concrete suggestions:

1. remove 3.1 and 3.2 -- I don't think in reality they are needed and I think they serve
to discourage folks from actually being an "Apache Extra" project -- a closely related
to an Apache project set of code that because of e.g., licensing restrictions, etc., 
couldn't normally be housed at Apache. The Apache Extras use cases I distill from
FAQ section 5 here [1]:

We recommend starting a project here if one or more of the following is true: 
	• the project is experimental and the committers are not sure of the future direction.
	• the project has a license or depends on a license that is not compatible with the Apache
License 2.0
	• the project is targeted at a small niche and might not benefit from the wider exposure
of being an Apache Software project.

are precisely the reason that I thought that Apache Extras was the right place to bring 
my code. What I'm proposing IMHO falls into the 2nd bullet. 

2. loosen the language in 3.1 and 3.2 -- for example, an exception mechanism in which
if an Apache Extras project is operated by an ASF member, and the PMC/committee doesn't
have an issue with using the org.apache.* namespace/similar plugin name (because 
in the end it benefits their community), then allow them to obviate 3.1 and 3.2. I'd be happy
to write up the patch to the FAQ/guidelines if there is lazy consensus with this option. I'd
also be happy to hold a formal VOTE on the Apache OODT lists should this option be 
OK'ed by community@.



Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

View raw message