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 Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:13:34 GMT

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)?


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