Another reason we probably shouldn't worry about this: anybody can create a DNS name at their leisure which transparently redirects to accumulo.apache.org and serves its contents. This is perfectly legitimate for a number of reasons, including corporate proxies/mirrors, URL-shortening services, caching services, archiving services, vision-impaired accessibility services, foreign-language DNS mappings, and so-on.
I think when it comes to trademarks and our website, our area of concern should mostly focus on when people misrepresent our trademark in the course of their mirroring/archiving. There's no risk of that for a mirror that is explicitly under our control, but I'm really leaning towards the javascript to detect and display a message about the canonical location just to mitigate any possibility for concern. If you still have concerns, I'd be happy to put it up for a formal vote from the PMC, or to get feedback from ASF trademarks folks before we proceed. On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I think the difference is that archive.org (and others -- google > cached pages come to mind) are devoted/known for that specific purpose. > The fact that Github ends up being a "de-facto" location for software > projects, I'm just nervous about the expecting good faith from the > denizens of the internet. Maybe I'm just worrying too much. If there's > sufficient "it'll be ok" opinion coming from the PMC, it's fine by me. > > Christopher wrote: > > I can't imagine there's a trademark issue since it's really just acting > as > > a mirror. If there were trademark issues, I imagine sites like > > http://archive.org would be in big trouble. But, it certainly couldn't > hurt > > to find out. > > > > Another option to sabotage the GH-rendered site is to add some javascript > > which detects the location and displays an informative link back to the > > canonical location for the site. That should be simple enough to do. > > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> It's also probably worth mentioning that this concern only comes about > >> for point #4 (or if we use the branch name gh-pages in point #1). > >> > >> Josh Elser wrote: > >>> The one concern I had was regarding automatic rendering of what would > >>> look like "the Apache Accumulo website" on Github (both apache/accumulo > >>> github account and other forks). > >>> > >>> Christopher had said that no one seemed to object in comdev@ when he > >>> talked about this a while back. I wanted to make sure everyone > >>> considered this (for example, Christopher's fork of Drill's repository > >>> now also looks like a canonical host of the Apache Drill project). I'm > >>> not actively stating that I think it's an issue at this point, only > >>> suggesting that we give it some thought and maybe ask someone who is > >>> more knowledgable (Shane from trademarks?) before moving forward. The > >>> worst case I envision is that we find some way to "gimp" the > >>> github-rendered site (redirect back to the canonical > accumulo.apache.org > >>> or similar). > >>> > >>> Christopher wrote: > >>>> I got some information back from INFRA about how the git-based sites > >>>> work. > >>>> It's just plain old static hosting of a git branch. So, whatever we'd > >> put > >>>> in a specified branch would show up directly on the site, no rendering > >> or > >>>> generation. This would completely bypass CMS and buildbot staging > >> builds. > >>>> Was discussing this with elserj in IRC, and these ideas came out of > >> that: > >>>> 1. Switch site to use git branch named "site" or "website" or similar. > >>>> 2. Use jekyll 3 to generate the static site contents in this git > branch. > >>>> 3. Store the unrendered (markdown) jekyll stuff in a gh-pages branch. > >>>> 4. Possibly set up a post-commit hook on gh-pages branch to render > >>>> locally > >>>> and commit the generated static site to the "site" branch. > > >
