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 19:31:04 GMT
(removing community@ from the CC list; aren't we trying to kill that thread?)

Hi Ross,

Thanks for replying. Comments below:

On Dec 29, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> >
> > 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.
> The ASF does not release code under any license other than the Apache license,

Who asked to release the code? I just want an SVN to throw the code up at.
If you look at oodt-pushpull-plugins [1], the LICENSE.txt file is ALv2. The code
we wrote (in Java) is ALv2. The code includes a runtime Maven2 dependency
on libraries that provide FTP protocol implementations (Ftp4Che [2] and JvFtp [3])
that are LGPL licensed. 

> using Apache marks and namespaces will only serve to confuse users.

Huh? I completely disagree. We've already confused them by calling this
site "Apache Extras". And let's be clear. *I am* a potential user of this site,
so I'm one of the potential "users" we're talking about here. I'm also a special
class of user; I'm an Apache member that is look for a home to place plugins
related to the PMC he's on (and chair of) that we couldn't otherwise house
at the ASF. I followed all of the discussions related to Apache Extras when
it was being discussed. I *thought* this is precisely the situation that 
Extras would have been useful for. I could throw up the code at Google 
Code, or at Github. I didn't want to b/c it's totally related to Apache OODT.
In fact, so much so, that I think it should be fine (and would be happy for
the OODT PMC to respond with an official VOTE that it's fine from our 
perspective too) to leverage the org.apache.oodt namespace in the plugin.
I've also offered to make it clear (on the Wiki page I was about to write
documenting how to use this plugin, which would basically be a summary 
of [4]) that the code is _at_Apache_Extras_ and _not_ an official Apache
OODT product.

Read my email that describes my situation again, please. Think of me as
a potential user of the site Apache Extras. My read on the guidelines/FAQ
was that it was a home for plugins like I've described (why include bullet 2

I'm taking exception to 3.1 and 3.2 *for my specific situation*. I think the 2nd
concrete idea I had addresses my concern and still allows our marks/etc. 
to be maintained. I also think that not relaxing the guidelines on 3.1 and 3.2
basically means that Apache Extras is just Google Code, and then I seriously
question why it includes the word "Apache" in its name at all.

> Furthermore, if we relaxed this rule them who would police it?

The PMCs would police it, in _specific_approved_situations_ as I've suggested. 



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