incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:23:20 GMT
On 17 August 2015 at 09:53, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:

> Am 17.08.2015 10:45, schrieb Branko ─îibej:
> [...]
>
>> So wait ... If the Subversion PMC releases source, and, say, Debian
>> creates a binary package called 'subversion-x.y.z' ... you're saying
>> that's trademark infringement and we should be telling all the people
>> who produce binary packages to stop using our registered trademark?
>> Really?
>>
>> Producing binaries is different from creating a derived work. Even if
>> packagers change the sources (which they often do, in minor ways, to
>> tune the build to their platform), it's less than sane to tell them they
>> should rename the packages because of that.
>>
>> It would be different if their changes resulted in changed
>> functionality, but that's not what's happening.
>>
>
> My take so far is: The PMC decides upon if they want to allow for that or
> not. So the Subversion PMC could forbid the redistribution of packages
> named subversion-x.y.z... But that does not mean they have to. Where the
> PMC should get active in such matters is if something claims to be
> subversion, but really is not. But again the PMC is responsible for that.


I don't know what Debian is doing to subversion... they are certainly
making - to my mind at least - significant changes to Maven:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/maven.git/tree/debian/patches/plugins_version.diff?id=2628fdf44618983f3c714b6c0a9c320f68ab2ad2

On the other hand, Subversion and Maven both at least have an "out" for the
distros... we can ask them to use our "short-name"

I think it is acceptable for our users to

apt-get install mvn

That seems acceptable to me, and would not put into question the usage of
our mark.

For something like

brew install maven

Which really does this:

https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula/maven.rb

I have a hard time arguing a case that homebrew is abusing our mark...
homebrew goes and grabs our convenience binary, removes some excess files
(windows batch files) and creates symlinks...

In short, my personal opinion is that `brew install maven` is installing
maven as provided by the Apache Maven PMC.

On the other hand, when I look at the description of Debian's maven package:


http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/maven.git/tree/debian/control?id=2628fdf44618983f3c714b6c0a9c320f68ab2ad2#n47

Description: Java software project management and comprehension tool
>  Maven is a software project management and comprehension tool. Based on
> the
>  concept of a project object model (POM), Maven can manage a project's
> build,
>  reporting and documentation from a central piece of information.
>  .
>  Maven's primary goal is to allow a developer to comprehend the complete
>  state of a development effort in the shortest period of time. In order to
>  attain this goal there are several areas of concern that Maven attempts
>  to deal with:
>  .
>     * Making the build process easy
>     * Providing a uniform build system
>     * Providing quality project information
>     * Providing guidelines for best practices development
>     * Allowing transparent migration to new features


I see a potential abuse of our mark which I have raised with the rest of
the Apache Maven PMC. It's not a major abuse, for example I believe some
simple changes to this description would suffice:

e.g. by changing it with the following diff

Description: Java software project management and comprehension tool
> - Maven is a software project management and comprehension tool. Based on
> the

+ Debian's redistribution of Apache Maven.

+ .

+ Apache Maven is a software project management and comprehension tool.
> Based on the
>   concept of a project object model (POM), Maven can manage a project's
> build,
>   reporting and documentation from a central piece of information.
>   .
>   Maven's primary goal is to allow a developer to comprehend the complete
>   state of a development effort in the shortest period of time. In order to
>   attain this goal there are several areas of concern that Maven attempts
>   to deal with:
>   .
>      * Making the build process easy
>      * Providing a uniform build system
>      * Providing quality project information
>      * Providing guidelines for best practices development
>      * Allowing transparent migration to new features
> + .
> + Apache, Apache Maven and Maven are trademarks of the Apache Software
> Foundation.


The critical question that does concern me, however, is the package name
`maven`... is the package name an abuse of our mark?

I really would appreciate guidance from brand management on the package
name thing.

Users of a distribution expect when they

yum install apache subversion maven

that they have installed Apache HTTPD, Apache Subversion and Apache
Maven... but really they have installed Fedora's httpd service based on
Apache HTTPD, Fedora's svn based on Apache Subversion and Fedora's mvn
based on Apache Maven.

So:

Is Debian calling a package `maven` that is a clearly different thing[1]
from Apache Maven an abuse of the Maven trademark?

If the answer is yes, can we do things to maintain the ability of users to
easily get our software?

* The Maven PMC could request Debian to use `mvn` as the package name...
things get more complex with all the other plugins that they rebuild
though... e.g. they rebuild the maven-compiler-plugin...
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-java/maven-compiler-plugin.git/ now
currently they are not applying any patches but even if they were applying
patches they would need to call it maven-compiler-plugin for inter-op...
OTOH if applying patches ugh! this is a mess.

* The Maven PMC could grant Debian a license to use our mark, perhaps with
some conditions - e.g. the PMC gets to veto releases or approve any patches
that are applied to our source.

But before we cross that bridge, we really need brand management to answer
the question

    Is Debian calling a package `maven` that is a clearly different thing
from Apache Maven an abuse of the Maven trademark?

-Stephen

[1] If we get a bug report from a user using the `apt-get install maven` we
pretty much have to ask them to reproduce on our convenience binary first
before accepting the bug.


>
>
> bye blackdrag
>
> --
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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