incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:52:16 GMT
On 02/29/2012 02:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012 8:07 AM, "Alex Karasulu"<akarasulu@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Greg Stein<gstein@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> ...
>>> They remain.
>>>
>>> Keeping them is the right thing for our community and product. That is
> our
>>> determination, and is our Right.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry but I don't think that's right.
>
> Please explain what information you have that states we cannot use
> org.tigris.subversion for our deprecated APIs. I'm very curious because I
> wasn't aware of any prohibition on this. You seem to know something the
> Subversion community does not. Explain, please.
>
> (and yes, I know exactly who owns org.tigris.subversion; I'd like to see if
> you do)
>
>>> Sqoop has determined backwards compatibility is important to their
>>> community and wants to keep this (deprecated) interface for a while. So
>>> where is the problem here, people?
>>>
>>>
>> It's fine but those com.cloudera packages don't need to be hosted here.
>
> The community says it is best for their product to bundle the deprecated
> APIs. Do you have some information from the community that says otherwise?
>
>> They can be hosted elsewhere and the backwards compatibility issue can
>> still be handled.
>
> They can, but the community feels it best for their users to bundle it as
> part of the product. Do you know something about the users that leads you
> to believe they would prefer to get the deprecated interfaces from
> somewhere else? As a separate download? An extra step?
>
> What do you know that the Sqoop devs do not?
>
>>> Really. What is the problem with the extra interfaces?
>>>
>>>
>> The package namespace is not ours. It's that simple G.
>
> Are we allowed to use it? Is the namespace designed/defined for us to use
> it? Is somebody attempting to recover the deprecated namespace? Do the
> owners *want* us to continue using it?
>
> Those are the questions.
>
> I know Subversion is allowed to use org.tigris for its deprecated APIs. Who
> are you to say otherwise? Why do you assume you know better? How is it you
> know what package name I can or cannot use?
>
>>> There is no legal (trademark or copyright) problem that I'm aware of.
> There
>>> is no technical problem that I'm aware of.
>>
>>
>> OK do we have the right to create any kind of package or class under
>> com.cloudera (or any other companies packages)?
>
> I bet they would get pissed if we created arbitrary packages in their
> namespace, but that is NOT the question at hand.

To me this actually *is* the question at hand, but from a different perspective 
than you bring up.
In my initial response on this I raised this as a question about affiliation and 
independence of the project towards the community.

For all I know Cloudera might not get pissed off at all if arbitrary packages in 
their namespace are created. There are plenty Cloudera committers on Sqoop which 
could (legally be allowed to) do this themselves.

So to me this is not a legal problem but one of community, diversity and 
independence of affiliation.

How will the community perceive the project independence from Cloudera if it 
carries, and maintains a 3rd party namespace, to which several committers are 
commercially affiliated as employee.

That IMO should be an concern for the Foundation, not solely a 'Right' of a PMC 
to decide on themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message