lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Build/deploy Maven artifacts outside of Lucene/Solr
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:43:04 GMT
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Robert Muir <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>>> How do you know it's done 'appropriately' in your scenario? You could
>>> have had just as many board members up your nose by using your
>>> ant/github procedure and depositing the resulting bundle on Apache
>>> 'dist' as an 'auxiliary binary bundle'.
>> How so? what would the board members do me?
>> whats wrong with what i did legally with
>> (3.6 solr depends on that).
>> I forked another project (Welcome to github!) and put up downloads.
>> ivy downloads from there.
>> The licensing terms are legit, its not doing any thing sheisty with
>> apache infrastructure, there are no jars in our source tree.
>> its just an open source fork of an abandoned project (jetty 6) that i
>> picked up and patched for unicode bugs. Anyone can use the build.xml
>> there to recreate it totally from source code.
> You didn't do this as an official act of an Apache PMC. However, if
> you had done this to Xerces, you might have gotten some (I think
> ill-informed) trademark hassles if you didn't change the package
> names. However, I think that's a digression.

Maybe, thats ok. I could have also ignored these. Seeing how Apache
enforces its trademark with Lucene (e.g. Zend Lucene), I'm not worried
in the slightest. Bring the lawyers on: I'm not afraid.

The best part about it: I forked this project independently, just like
any old Joe Schmoe can fork any old github project and improve it. And
if the licensing is ok, we are free to depend on it, and our PMC
doesnt need to worry about trademarks for projects we arent
responsible for.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message