incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: moving a failed incubation project
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:02:15 GMT
Another point you might want to consider is what perception folks will have
of your code if they want to use it.  I can't speak for everyone
(obviously), but I know that if I wanted to use a piece of software and I
was downloading it from Sourceforge or something and it had the
org.apache.*package name, I'd be VERY skeptical of it.  It would seem
to me as if
someone is trying to lend credibility to their project by slapping the ASF
package on there.  That would raise red flags.  I'm not saying that's what
you're doing.  I'm just saying that's what people might think.

On 1/23/08, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> I guess the big point here is what is the big issue with changing the
> package name in the code?  When people see a class that's in an
> org.apache.* package, they assume that it's from the ASF.  Leaving it in
> an ASF-namespaced package has two problems here:
>
> 1.  People will assume that it's ASF code.
> 2.  The ASF never put its "stamp of approval" on this code, since it never
> made it out of the incubator.
>
> Neither one of these problems is a legal problem based on the license
> (from what folks have said here).  But, there are certain conventions in the
> Java community which we follow.  If someone sees that code and they want to
> learn more about it, they'll probably go to www.apache.org and try to find
> some information.  Leaving that code in an ASF-namespaced package is kind of
> like putting words into someone else's mouth.
>
> Another interesting point to all of this is the question of whether the
> package name really is part of "the code".  Is "the code" everything that's
> in the source file or is "the code" the actual logic inside the file?  The
> package statement could only be seen as a namespace facility and not
> necessarily "code."  I'm no lawyer, but one might try to make that
> distinction.
>
> On 1/23/08, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> >
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching <sk@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Niall Pemberton schrieb:
> > >>
> > >>> On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle < pzfreo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Niall
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing
> > our
> > >>>> weight around.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Well you were talking about "need to change the package name" and
> > >>> "rigorous protection" rather than some kind of "hey we'd prefer
> > >>> it...".
> > >>>
> > >>> If people are so keen on *protecting* apache in this way then rather
> > >>> than starting with a failed incubator project, then how about this
> > >>> stuff:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/appserv-webtier/src/java/org/apache/
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Again, that is a bit different from the original TCIK issue. It
> > >> *appears* that here they are not doing this in order to *distribute*
> > a
> > >> forked copy of tomcat, but instead to support tomcat as an
> > alternative
> > >> internal servlet-engine implementation within their own j2ee server.
> > In
> > >> other words, I would think that:
> > >> (a) you could not normally download this code except by downloading
> > the
> > >> entire glassfish server, and
> > >> (b) they are not actively developing this code to add new features
> > >> (forking) but simply adding a few patches to make it integrate better
> > >> with Glassfish.
> > >>
> > >> The alternate implementations of commons-logging have also been
> > >> mentioned in this thread. This is not the same IMO. Commons-logging
> > is
> > >> both an API and an implementation. People should be able to provide
> > >> alternate implementations of an API, and that is what slf4j are doing
> >
> > >> for example; they are not providing a "patched" or "forked"
> > >> commons-logging, but instead a complete alternative implementation,
> > and
> > >> are distributing just the minimum amount of code to provide the same
> > api
> > >> to users.
> > >>
> > >> So:
> > >> * distributing a few classes in order to implement an apache API : ok
> > >> * distributing a copy of apache code for the convenience of users of
> > a
> > >> larger package, perhaps with a few minor tweaks for better
> > integration: ok
> > >> * publishing code to the world which bears no resemblance to code
> > >> approved by the ASF: not ok
> > >>
> > >
> > > My advice to anyone - read the license yourself, take advice if you
> > > feel you need it and ignore all the stuff being spouted here:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution
> > >
> >
> > That would be my feeling too. The license pretty much allows people to
> > do whatever they want with the code and the package name is part of the
> > code.
> >
> > -> richard
> >
> > > Niall
> > >
> > >
> > >> All this just just my opinion of course..
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Simon
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message