On 13/05/11 07:16, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Certification semms like mission creep. Our mission is to produce
> open-source software. If we wish to produce testing software, that
> seems fine. But running a certification program for non-open-source
> software seems like a different task.
>
+1
That said, some stricter definition of public interfaces may be useful
for the related projects, as a consistent open source stack is strongly
beneficial.
> The Hadoop mark should only be used to refer to open-source software
> produced by the ASF. If other folks wish to make factual statements
> concerning our software, e.g., that their proprietary software passes
> tests that we've created, that may be fine, but I don't think we should
> validate those claims by granting certifications to institutions. That
> ventures outside the mission of the ASF. We are not an accrediting
> organization.
+1. Apache is not a standards body, except in the form of "de-facto
standards defined by working code and their test suite"
What it does have a strict rules about naming. We should formalise them
and publish them on the wiki, then whenever some product gets
press-released (it's like a beta-release, only earlier in the
lifecycle), the vendor can be directed to the page and reminded of the
T&Cs of the license and any trade marks.
What does this mean for T-Shirts and Stickers, incidentally?
|