www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: artifactIds and "apache-" prefix for trademark-enabled artifacts
Date Wed, 16 May 2007 12:44:25 GMT
On May 16, 2007, at 4:21 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:

> On 16/05/07, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>> I'm all for protecting things... but if that means putting "apache-"
>> in-front of everything... then I'm not sure how well that is going to
>> fly with the rest of the community.
> Here's a problem I have with the apache- prefix.
> 1. I have the right to cut my own distributions of any apache project
> 2. I have the right to publish them to any private repository, where
> that includes repositories private to the two class-A domains of my
> employers, i.e. 1/128 of the entire IPV4 address space.
> 3. but if the artifacts have apache- in the front, then surely I am
> claiming my private artifacts are in fact apache distros, when unless
> I am the release manager for an artifact, and follow the formal
> release process, that is not the case.
> so, -1 on process grounds, and -1 because you can take branding too
> far. Should we rewrite all the ant and maven docs to tell people to
> install into ApacheAnt and ApacheMaven dirs, and rename the env
> variables APACHE_ANT_HOME and APACHE_MAVEN_HOME? I think not.

Ya, no kidding that leads to naming all classes Apache*, all scripts  
apache-* and really any other file apache-*.

But seriously... for the *official release assemblies*... I'm more  
than happy to name the jars apache-* (as in apache-geronimo-javaee- 
jetty-2.0.zip, vs. geronimo-javaee-jetty-2.0.zip).

BUT for the myrdiad of (er ~200+ modules) that make up that  
distribution.... I really, really, really thing that the groupId or  
org.apache.* should suffice.

IMO if there is a legal problem with this, then we need to get with  
the lawyers and sort our how we can be legally covered with our Maven  


View raw message