incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching>
Subject Re: Fwd: package names (was Re: PLEASE READ: package names, trademarks and legal advice)
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:50:25 GMT
Hi Janne et. al.,

While it is not possible for code to be released from an incubator
project, I see no reason why code cannot be developed in apache svn but
released by the project.

I would therefore suggest that:
1) the code be imported into apache svn
2) the licensing be changed, but NOT the packagenames
3) a 2.8.0 release be made from the site, as a
release, using the code taken from the apache svn. This release will be
under the Apache license, but with the existing packagenames and stating
that it is a product, not an ASF product (ie NOTICE etc
refer to or ecyrd).
4) then the packagenames can be changed in apache svn, NOTICE updated,
promotion from incubator to full project can happen, and a 3.0 ASF
release of the code can be made.

With this approach:
(a) work can be done in the asf repository, using asf procedures, asf
mailing lists etc. This will provide evidence of the community necessary
for promotion from the incubator. The cvs should be frozen
at the time of import into apache svn, so there is only one "active"
(b) the move to ASF doesn't block release of a jspwiki 2.8.0 release.
That release cannot be made under the ASF name, but that doesn't matter.

Even 2.8.1 etc. can be developed in the asf repo, as long as it is
released by not

The fact that the released code is not in the org.apache namespace
doesn't matter, because it is not an ASF release.

*Note that this is just my opinion*. The project mentor/incubator PMC
are the ones who would have to ok this.


Simon (; ASF member, but not incubator pmc)

Janne Jalkanen schrieb:
> Folks,
> The opinion seems to be that for 2.8, we would need to rename all the
> packages to org.apache.jspwiki.*.  This means that ALL existing
> plugins and modules will break.  The problem is that we're going to
> break the API again in 3.0 (that's why the "3"), when revamping the
> backend.
> So, this means two source and binary breaks between two consecutive
> major releases, invalidating all of the existing plugins.
> We have three options: change our release plans, bite the bullet and
> accept the breaks, or alternatively, postpone graduation until we have
> 3.0 (which may take a while).
> Opinions?  Other alternatives?
> /Janne
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: "Noel J. Bergman" <>
>> Date: 24 January 2008 07:23:49 GMT+02:00
>> To: <>
>> Subject: RE: package names (was Re: PLEASE READ: package names,
>> trademarks and legal advice)
>> Reply-To:
>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 2008 11:02 AM, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
>>>>>> Legally, all we can do is ask them to change the package names and
>> if
>>>>>> they don't, there's nothing we can do
>> Please note: I did not make the above statement.  You quoted me quoting
>> someone else.  Any legal advice would have to come from the ASF Legal
>> Committee in consultation with ASF legal counsel.  I don't know how
>> to make
>> this point any clearer.
>>> so, does this mean:
>>> - during incubation the packages should be renamed to org.apache.* but
>>>   not on the start?
>>> - is org.apache.* an exit criteria ? I think yes
>> We've already been through this many times, with Roller, Wicket and
>> others,
>> so I'd go back and look to see how we handled it there --- and
>> And, yes, I agree that switching to the o.a. package space is a
>> graduation
>> requirement at the very least.
>>     --- Noel
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message