tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Raeburn" <sraeb...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Fedora "tomcat"
Date Mon, 17 May 2004 03:09:44 GMT
Excuse me for pitching in. I thought it was worth pointing out that the
Apache 1.1 License specifically prohibits distributing derivative works
using the name Tomcat.

 * 4. The names  "The  Jakarta  Project",  "Tomcat",  and  "Apache
Software *
 *    Foundation"  must not be used  to endorse or promote  products
derived *
 *    from this  software without  prior  written  permission.  For
written *
 *    permission, please contact <apache@apache.org>.
*

If Fedora is distributing a derivative work and calling it Tomcat, then
they are in breach of the license (IMHO, IANAL).

If the Fedora guys are doing something you're unhappy with, then I hope
they would respond to a friendly, informal approach. If they are
unresponsive, then I would consider kicking this up to the board for a
more formal approach.

Of course, if you can also make it easier for Fedora to use the official
TC releases, then that would be great too.

I'll go back to lurking now :-)

Steve



> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Costin Manolache
> Sent: May 16, 2004 5:14 PM
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Fedora "tomcat"
>
>
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> >
> >> It is very nice they are bundling java tools and tomcat -
> but I thing
> >> it is a big problem ( for tomcat developers, fedora users
> and  tomcat
> >> users ) that they distribute such a badly modified tomcat
> ( and call
> >> it tomcat)
> >
> >
> > But for a daemon, which is often more complex and needs to
> be really
> > reliable, it would need more time to mature :(
>
> People using Fedora and Tomcat 4.1.27 will not know that what they're
> using is an imature technology because of GCJ and because
> fedora messed
> up the layout of tomcat. They'll think it's tomcat that is a problem.
>
>
> >
> >> I don't think it's a RedHat or Fedora issue - they are
> probably trying
> >> to do what's best for their project ( fedora ). I don't
> know of they
> >> are intentionally trying to create "lockin" by having their own
> >> variation or just thing they know better how tomcat layout
> should look
> >> like - but the real question is if we should care about it and do
> >> anything about it.
> >>
> >> I have no doubt that other distributions will follow
> RedHat example and
> >> start to include their own layouts and changes - look at
> httpd example
> >> ( you can hardly find 2 distributions to place the conf or htdocs
> >> files in the same place ). Well, that's probably more rant for my
> >> weblog..
> >
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> >> If the release manager could take this extra work and
> include an RPM -
> >> or at least we could point to Henri's RPMs - and then we
> could make it
> >> clear that if a distribution wants to bundle tomcat, they
> should use
> >> the official RPM or something that is equivalent in layout, file
> >> permission, scripts, etc.
> >
> >
> > How hard would it be to automate it ?
> > The problem is that the script must be run from Windows to
> generate the
> > installer.
>
> Long back we had something part of the build.xml to generate both RPM
> and solaris PKG ( don't know if this was before or after
> having tomcat
> in apache ). It's not very hard - if you have cygwin I think
> it's doable
> even on windows.
>
>
> The real hard part is agreeing on a layout and pushing for this to
> happen - i.e. making it clear in the web site that a distro
> that doesn't
> follow the layout shouldn't be used, and providing
> alternative RPMs for
> people.
>
> Any standard layout is ok for me - I allways preffered the
> /opt model (
> Apple is using something similar AFAIK for applications, so
> is windows),
>    but linux distros have this stupid FHS standard that
> allows them to
> put files in almost any place - but excludes /opt model.
>
> I think any layout is good - as long as we can tell people "look in
> /etc/tomcat/jk2.properties" instead of "try to find where your
> distribution installed tomcat config files". Or "place your webapps
> files in /var/tomcat/webapps/XXX". Or write additional RPMs
> that install
> different modules automatically.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Probably this can't be enforced ( we don't have any
> trademark on the
> >> name ), but we can at least mention somewhere that what they
> >> distribute is not actually tomcat. I see this as a fork
> using the same
> >> name as the original product.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I think the ASF has very little control of the usage
> in most cases.
>
> We do control the website and it can be used to inform people and
> distribute the "right thing". I know we give up control over the code
> and apparently the name ( I am not very sure how they call their
> modified version "tomcat", but I assume we have no trademark ).
>
>
> Apache ( and many other open source projects ) don't seem to have the
> will or care about how their software is distributed or about the
> resulting fragmentation and support problems.
>
>
>
> >> Sun does provide a RPM and .tgz that works on all distributions I
> >> tried. If the JDK itself can be made cross-distribution, I
> don't see
> >> why we couldn't have a binary package that could be
> installed on all
> >> distributions. I think there are even tools to convert
> from .rpm to
> >> .deb and .tgz - to support the other package formats.
> >
> >
> > True, their stuff works on every distribution.
> >
> >> It is absurd to have one package for each variant using RPM, with
> >> different layouts and content.
> >
> >
> > Indeed :(
> >
> > The issue has been around forever, which means that the
> vendors haven't
> > done much to solve the issue. And since all Linus cares
> about is the
> > kernel ;)
> > (good thing some unifying has been going on in the UI department,
> > otherwise, I can't imagine the mess it would be ;) )
>
>
> Linus cares about the kernel - we should care about tomcat :-)
>
> On all distributions I know, the kernel is in /boot, modules in
> /lib/modules/VERSION, the start sequence is the same, etc.
>
> But what you are saying is the essence of the problem and
> missunderstanding - the "vendor" for tomcat is ASF, not Fedora.
> All commercial vendors I know distribute their own packages ( RPM or
> install shield or whatever ) - they don't let re-distributors sell a
> completely modified package with the same name as the original.
> If security or stability problems are found - they'll be
> attributed to
> tomcat and apache.
>
> People confuse what "vendor" means - it should be the author of the
> software, not agregators that take many packages and sell
> them togheter.
>
>
> Costin
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message