incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:42:29 GMT
I was indeed talking of publishing the original material, released properly
from Apache but with some minor changes to fit into the "Steve&Nick
Platform" (whatever that might be). I think that is analogous...

So, if we agree that is all the same... minor alterations of official
releases....

That said, I think/suspect that if "Cloudera Hadoop" or "Hortonworks
Hadopo" is published in this manner (official releases with minor changes
to fit their bigger picture), there might be quite a lot of noise... Just
asking... I have no strong opinion in either way, other than I would like
to see consistency.

Cheers
Niclas


On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Well, if  "Debian" can publish their built Apache Maven as "maven" and
> > "Steve&Nick" can't publish their built Apache Maven as "maven", then the
> > inescapable question is; On what non-arbitrary grounds is one acceptable
> > and the other is not? It can't be "we like Debian, but not Steve&Nick",
> > that is morally weak.
>
> We need to distinguish between two situations:
>
> *   Redistributor starts from official Apache release.
> *   Redistributor starts from unreleased code.
>
> "Debian" consumes official Apache releases, and they make changes that are
> often very small.  Whether we should be aggressive in enforcing our
> trademarks
> under those circumstances is a judgment call.  Should "Steve&Nick" also
> start
> from an official release and make changes of similar scope to those made by
> "Debian", I would agree that the case for enforcing our trademarks would be
> roughly analogous.
>
> However, if "Steve&Nick" are Apache project contributors publishing
> unreleased
> code and making an end run around Apache release policy, there's greater
> cause
> for concern.
>
> *   Are other PMC members being denied their right to participate in
> release
>     decision making?
> *   To what extent does the privileged position afforded "Steve&Nick"
>     undermine project independence?
> *   While our communities strive to maintain codebases in compliance with
>     Apache legal and release policies, we accept that raw repository code
> may
>     be imperfect between releases.  Just how far out of compliance is the
>     unreleased code "Steve&Nick" are publishing under our trademark?
> *   To what extent is the 501(c)(3) status of the Foundation put at
>     increased risk by the actions of this project?  What if the practices
>     spread to other projects?
>
> If "Debian" were to systematically consume unreleased code from us (aside
> from
> patches they've contributed themselves), I imagine we would have similar
> concerns.  But that seems like a weird theoretical.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

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