Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Can you un-open-source a product? Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal
From: Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0301MB1553D5A99BC4C3D0EB9787AB99C10@BLUPR0301MB1553.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:35:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6E95B3CD-4A54-469B-948F-8EDD6BE6A8DD@stratuscom.com>
References: <CALuGr6YNYc49_5iOMBRns=vs2O1UbVCw2fT4F_C1v8BX42YQjQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABD8fLWLKUhfs9bpuwYSefD4LznLAYq5dPU5m+qGfBPgb77zHg@mail.gmail.com> <CALuGr6ZLGv6MTVEFoukxwzQsF7Lsv9Y6g=evr4d_G6AHSf1PhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOqetn92JLy-TGiVK+=RAFY2YEV5r+5Ln7K-z+ieyi26Mc20YQ@mail.gmail.com> <1D97DADB-8BE1-4C06-8680-5F0832262516@gmail.com> <CABD8fLUMefX+8pOvpNSaSTrBiVgtmjmqV6dVjBY2zcmqQywE1Q@mail.gmail.com> <3072BEB1-BAC1-4590-884C-F4CDF4BBDDE7@gmail.com> <CALuGr6YQWdb6MiVUWb8fyo_P0eVmQLcCtnPhCLF_S2+i2o1_wg@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR0301MB1553D5A99BC4C3D0EB9787AB99C10@BLUPR0301MB1553.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
archived-at: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 03:35:29 -0000


I=E2=80=99m kind of curious how we=E2=80=99d apply our =E2=80=9CCommunity =
over Code=E2=80=9D credo to a situation like this.

It sounds like DataStax acquired a =E2=80=9Ccommunity=E2=80=9D centred =
on a product that had been open-sourced by its previous steward.  And =
now their legal department is re-asserting control over the product.  =
Fair enough, but if there=E2=80=99s a community that wants to carry on =
development against a product that was properly and fairly ASL2 =
licensed, does the acquirer have the right to shut them down?  They =
certainly could assert control over the trademark that they own, but =
what if the community called it something else and carried on (which we =
generally require of an incubator product anyway)? =20

I=E2=80=99m obviously thinking of Hudson and Jenkins here - the =
community forked the code over a weekend, and Oracle was left with a =
dead product.  When they asserted ownership of the =E2=80=9CHudson=E2=80=9D=
 trademark, the community simply said =E2=80=9COK, it=E2=80=99s Jenkins =
now=E2=80=9D, and carried on.

If they had come to Apache, would we have shown them the door, for =
legalistic reasons? ( I don=E2=80=99t recall them coming to Apache at =
the time, but I could be wrong).  Is it a =E2=80=9Chostile fork=E2=80=9D =
if the bulk of the community is in favour, and it=E2=80=99s only the =
trademark owner that demurs?

It seems to me that one of the goals of Apache is to have a =
=E2=80=9Cneutral=E2=80=9D corporate entity to host open-source projects =
under open but orderly governance, so that an open-source project stands =
a chance of outlasting the mercurial whims of a commercial entity (and =
also of individual maintainers).

So I wonder if we=E2=80=99re being a little quick to shut down a =
community that wants open governance.

Cheers,

Greg Trasuk


> On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Ross Gardler =
<Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>=20
> Yes, with a few binding -1's there is nothing to discuss unless =
Datastax wish to reconsider. I doubt they want to discuss that on a =
public list.
>=20
> Ross
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.saputra@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:57 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal
>>=20
>> With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE this =
DISCUSS thread
>> until further updates, if any?
>>=20
>> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>> For the record I'd be -1 as well unless DataStax chose to support =
it.
>>>=20
>>> I would like to give them time to change their mind though.
>>>=20
>>> -Taylor
>>>=20
>>>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgoetz@gmail.com
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> They can block a move to the ASF, but they can=E2=80=99t block a =
fork of
>>>>> the
>>>> project moving elsewhere. Strong communities will regroup and live =
on.
>>>> DataStax' reluctance to allow it could very easily be interpreted =
as
>>>> a rejection of the ASF governance model or the Foundation itself.
>>>>=20
>>>> Yes, the community could certainly launch their fork at GitHub or
>>>> some such. DataStax provided them with that ability via the ALv2
>>>> license. The ASF is not a necessary step for that community.
>>>>=20
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Can we wait and see if DataStax is willing to do the right thing
>>>>> before
>>>> shooting down the proposal as a hostile fork?
>>>>=20
>>>> My vote remains -1. That can change, based on their choices.
>>>>=20
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -g
>>>=20
>>> =
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>=20
>>>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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