community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: Apache Extras Question
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:13:34 GMT
Benson,

You honed in on PRECISELY the 2 points I was trying to make.
Thanks for making them so succinctly. One thing I will comment
on explicitly (read below):

On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

> There are two aspects of this situation that I want to highlight:
> 
> First, there's a policy tension at the heart of the whole Apache
> Extras concept that has me puzzled.
> 
> I could point to a raft of messages from board members expressing
> extremely vehement views in opposition to 'circumventing license
> restrictions via github.' The idea that a PMC might take active steps
> to put code elsewhere to address license restrictions was, at least in
> the rhetorical moments in question, anathema. Having read that email,
> if I were a PMC chair, I wouldn't what's proposed here without an
> explicit board approval. The implicit policy on 'extras' seemed to be
> that it was a place for outsiders to park code that, for whatever
> reason, wasn't contributable -- NOT a place for PMCs to park code that
> couldn't live in Apache source control.

Your "for whatever reason that wasn't contributable" to me is precisely 
a reason to "park code that couldn't live in Apache source control". The 
reason it wouldn't be able to live there in my case is that it has compilation
and run-time dependencies on LGPL code.

And yes, I recall the Apache Extras discussion on board@ and among
the members. It doesn't seem like it was a shoe-in for clarity. And, it 
confused the crap out of me this past few days and turned out to be a
red herring for what I was actually looking for.

> 
> Second, I wonder about the proposed governance and logic of this whole
> 'java package id rules' business. Here's a scenario: someone from
> outside Apache fills out the form, creates a project, and *forks some
> Apache project into it.* Bingo, 'org.apache.*'. What group of
> volunteers is signed up to notice and police this? For that matter,
> are we quite sure that the policy is a good idea? Package IDs in java
> tend to be sticky, to avoid pointless incompatibility. How can we say
> to people, 'The Apache license says that you can do whatever you want
> with this code -- except fork it at our affiliated site?'
> org.apache.oodt is not a trademark, at least, I sure hope it isn't. If
> we're going to try to control it on apacheextras, don't we need to go
> bugging every fork of every project on github?

Bingo. I made this point in conversations with Greg Stein, and with 
Noirin and Mark S. and Christian and others on this list. I agree with
Ross though -- it's a trademarks@ issue (which is why I'm glad they
are CC'ed) :-) 

Summarized point: why are we trying to even have a policy that we will
waste our volunteer time policing (potentially our own members but also) 
folks on our-supposedly-associated-with-our-organization-site-but-not-really
Apache Extras (and other places like Github, etc.) who use org.apache 
Java namespaces (which aren't trademarked)?

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Mime
View raw message