Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: shaposhnik@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACsi250t=y1TEOx9vn4vTOWpp0_SSkMZsCqAVesb54_b35NznQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55BF3A8D.9020701@gmx.org>
	<CAKprHVZjXEJ=XbWXdw4WORGc78yyuEHkkB4KKwmnu+6i0KLVBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C08445.5050006@gmx.org>
	<CA+ULb+sLF6Q2ph61ZtNKe5S1w46bZLgYMQ7+GyzAMHv66erRwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C317A7.7030500@gmx.org>
	<CA+ULb+sA-TaMoGmKwnxsibLi=CKD97WGPvpOJ1e2NbVqts_Hrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJn8iH_WaajmeAEwxStNnZWx4wn5T5gb63=hHoUPY2OuuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+ULb+vijt1NheAC40vrJMU1EigMS-WLXX7qMug8R9CDewQ2VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACsi250t=y1TEOx9vn4vTOWpp0_SSkMZsCqAVesb54_b35NznQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:38:35 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+ULb+vZPHZc=JP2sGEcOU-c=Mr9jwD0ovd8mGWgX+TewJbHOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
From: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:30 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>> >> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
>> >> artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?...
>> >
>> > IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly
>> > identified as not coming from the ASF
>
> As a reminder, based on the foundation core purpose, the ASF releases open
> source code for consumption by the general public at no charge.
>
> While convenience binaries are shipped by many projects, others pointedly
> refuse (subversion is one example where all binary builds are thirdparty).
> The complexity of the number of potential build is one driving factor...
> Compile once-and-done for Java is much different than a cross platform
> machine code result.

FWIW: this is exactly the position I subscribe to.

>> Well, the real question is: do we aspire to have a monopoly on certain
>> binary convenience artifacts? IOW, if a Hadoop PMC blessed and RPM
>> as one of those artifacts, does it mean that only that RPM (however
>> potentially screwed up it is from the standpoint of Fedora packaging
>> guidelines) is the RPM that can be called Hadoop?
>>
>> > If Kermit distributes a compiled version of httpd for example I would
>> > expect that to be labeled as "Kermit's distribution of the Apache HTTP
>> > Server".
>> >
>> > And if that's done properly I would expect filenames to reflect this
>> > where possible, so Kermit's binary package should be named like
>> > "kermit-httpd-2.4.16.tgz" to help prevent confusion.
>>
>> Well, this is not what's happening: http://pkgs.org/search/httpd
>
> A couple things here.  Our claim to Apache HTTP Server or Apache httpd
> marks are strong.  But HTTP alone is a protocol name, while httpd was the
> name of the binary of earlier (and other later) unix server daemons.

Sure. This was just an example. I could've as easily used Subversion:
   http://pkgs.org/search/subversion
or Maven:
    http://pkgs.org/search/maven
or dozen other examples.

My point is -- very few of them would say "Apache FOO". They all seem
to say "FOO". They also seem to correspond rather neatly to the official
source releases produced by the PMC.

Now, to complicate things even further: Maven actually does produce
binary convenience artifacts, where Subversion doesn't. Thus in case
of Maven what gets published by the downstream is *different* from
what gets published by Maven's PMC.

All I saying -- if I were to look at the branding downstream from ASF
PMC producing source releases thing get confusing pretty quickly.

I just honestly don't see how what Fedora does to Apache Maven would
be different from what Jochen was suggesting for Apache Groovy.

> If a vendor who hated the AL 2.0 (some did/still do?) decided to ship their
> improved "Apache httpd 2.0" based on their patches to 1.3 (under the AL
> 1.1) we would have had words, and likely a C&D letter to them eventually.

Understood. For the sake of keeping this thread even remotely manageable
lets just not even consider adulterated source. After all, there's quite a bit
of adulteration that can be done during build time anyway.

Thanks,
Roman.

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